{
  "id": 1588326,
  "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emily Kapustka, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Kapustka",
  "decision_date": "1969-10-08",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 53,124",
  "first_page": "379",
  "last_page": "383",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "115 Ill. App. 2d 379"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "188 NE2d 665",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill2d 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5359314
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/27/0135-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 385,
    "char_count": 5048,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.634,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.059502310752480164
    },
    "sha256": "bdea5e7b8d95ffbffecb6ac3d50437fb135cc018f19c6253650f74adede0c77b",
    "simhash": "1:69a909acfe780873",
    "word_count": 830
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:12:48.620365+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emily Kapustka, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE ENGLISH\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nOFFENSE CHARGED\nCriminal damage to property. Ill Rev Stats (1967), c 38, \u00a7 21-1 (a).\nJUDGMENT\nAfter a bench trial, defendant was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days in the House of Correction and one year\u2019s probation.\nPOINTS RAISED ON APPEAL\n(1) There were numerous trial errors, including: a misstatement of the evidence by the State\u2019s Attorney, and the improper introduction of evidence designed to impeach an alibi witness.\n(2) The evidence was insufficient to support the decision by the trial court.\n(3) Defendant was not accorded a fair and proper hearing in aggravation and mitigation.\nEVIDENCE\nMrs. Delores Evers, for the State:\nAt approximately 10:00 p. m., on July 30,1967, she took her dog out for a walk, heading toward the back of the yard at her home in Blue Island, Illinois. The dog ran to the back of the lot and witness followed, shining her flashlight. She saw defendant from three feet away, throwing black paint from a can onto the door of the Evers\u2019 garage. She had known defendant since 1963 and seen her on more than 10 occasions. When the light shone on defendant, she stopped, and each one looked at the other. Witness asked her, \u201cWhat the hell are you doing behind my garage?\u201d Defendant then ran down the alley to get away.\nEmily Kapustka, on her own behalf:\nAt 10:00 p. m., on the evening in question, she was in Bangor, Michigan, 125 miles from Chicago, and didn\u2019t return to Harvey, Illinois (near Blue Island) until 1:30 a. m.\nHelen Palchek, for defendant:\nShe is a friend of defendant and was with defendant in Bangor, Michigan the weekend of July 30, 1967. They didn\u2019t leave there until 10:30 that evening. She often takes girl friends to Bangor, as often as 25 times a year.\nDebbie Kay Kapustka:\nThe 13-year-old daughter of defendant, she remembered that on some weekend in July her mother went to Michigan with Mrs. Palchek.\nOPINION\nDefendant contends that the prosecuting attorney misstated evidence, in closing argument, to the effect that the alibi witness (Helen Palchek) \u201ccan\u2019t remember the times she went up there\u201d and \u201cdoes not represent the type of credible alibi witness that would be required for the Court to give any credence to.\u201d We find from a review of the record that some degree of confusion did exist in the witness\u2019 mind. Further, the statement was in no way prejudicial to defendant as reflected in the court\u2019s appraisal of the relevant evidence:\nWe have the witness, Helen Palchek, that testified they were up there on a particular weekend in Michigan, but returned on . . . Monday morning at 1:30\nDefendant\u2019s additional contention that the State attempted to impeach the same witness\u2019 testimony by reference to collateral matters is not substantiated. An objection to the line of questioning complained of was sustained.\nThe trial judge, being the trier of fact, was in the best position to weigh the testimony and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. His determination in these matters will not be set aside merely because the testimony is conflicting. We find that the testimony of the State\u2019s witness was adequate, if believed, to justify the judgment.\nDefendant\u2019s final contention that she was not accorded a fair and proper hearing in aggravation and mitigation because certain evidence was improperly admitted and resulted in prejudice to defendant, is also untenable. The pertinent statute, Ill Rev Stats (1967), c 38, \u00a7 1-7 (g) provides:\nFor the purpose of determining sentence to be imposed, the court shall, after conviction, consider the evidence, if any, received upon the trial and shall also hear and receive evidence, if any, as to the moral character, life, family, occupation and criminal record of the offender and may consider such evidence in aggravation or mitigation of the offense.\nIt was clearly within the scope of the hearing contemplated by this statute that the court was advised of defendant\u2019s record of past harassment and other property damage, along with the court psychiatrist\u2019s report. This was proper, pertinent evidence. The breadth of admissible information in such hearings was discussed in People v. Mann, 27 Ill2d 135, at page 139,188 NE2d 665:\n. . . the court is not bound by the usual rules of evidence found in criminal prosecutions but may search anywhere within reasonable bounds for other facts which tend to aggravate or mitigate the offense, including the moral character of defendant, his habits, social environment and motivations.\nWe find no prejudice to defendant in the hearing conducted in the instant case.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nDRUCKER, P. J. and McNAMARA, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE ENGLISH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Edward Jones, of Blue Island, for appellant.",
      "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and James S. Veldman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emily Kapustka, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 53,124.\nFirst District, Fourth Division.\nOctober 8, 1969.\nJ. Edward Jones, of Blue Island, for appellant.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and James S. Veldman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0379-01",
  "first_page_order": 385,
  "last_page_order": 389
}