{
  "id": 5313810,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis M. Enright, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People of State of Illinois v. Enright",
  "decision_date": "1971-09-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 54187",
  "first_page": "654",
  "last_page": "657",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 Ill. App. 3d 654"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "195 Ill.App. 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2875788
      ],
      "year": 1940,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/195/0410-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 N.E.2d 694",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ill.2d 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5356307
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/26/0533-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 368,
    "char_count": 6017,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.741,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32251764485110906
    },
    "sha256": "a8c88552ae94a3d88fb81c90a2390f1bb41a2fbde6918f82a99f2b68f5c767fe",
    "simhash": "1:c903f93968032d58",
    "word_count": 999
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:27:55.359601+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis M. Enright, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE SCHWARTZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant waived a jury, was tried by the court and found guilty of deceptive practices in violation of Section 17 \u2014 1 of Chapter 38 of the Illinois Revised Statutes (1967). The pertinent part of that law provides as follows:\n\u201cA person commits a deceptive practice when, with intent to defraud:\n# * #\n(e) He obtains, or attempts to obtain property * * * by any of the following means:\n(1) He uses a credit card which was issued to another, without the other\u2019s consent.\u201d\nAfter a hearing in aggravation and mitigation the defendant was sentenced to serve 90 days in the House of Correction. On appeal he contends (1) that the State failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence a credit card allegedly used by the defendant without permission of the owner. The facts follow.\nThe first of four witnesses who testified on behalf of the State was Miss Zino, a saleswoman in the glove department of Marshall Field & Company\u2019s store at 111 North State Street, Chicago. She testified that on December 24, 1968 she sold defendant pair of gloves. Defendant handed her a credit card and a sales slip was prepared on which defendant signed the name printed on the card. The State introduced Plaintiff\u2019s Exhibit A for identification, which was a credit card identified by Miss Zino as the one presented to her by the defendant. She testified that she notified \u201cSpecial services\u201d of her credit sale to the defendant and that Charles Brown, a store detective, responded to her call.\nCharles Brown testified that he was employed by Marshall Field & Company as a part-time store detective, that as he approached the glove counter in answer to the call, he saw defendant running down a main aisle in the store. Brown talked with Miss Zino and then pursued the defendant, whom he apprehended outside the store.\nRobert R. Brinkman testified that the Marshall Field & Company credit card marked Plaintiff\u2019s Exhibit A for identification was received by him in the mail after he had applied for a credit card. He stated that although his name was printed on the credit card, he had never used the card nor had he signed it. He testified that he had never seen defendant before nor had he ever given him permission to use the card. Plaintiffs Exhibit A for identification was admitted in evidence over the defendant\u2019s objection that it had not been sufficiently identified.\nMrs. Nancy Brinkman testified that she was the wife of Robert R. Brinkman and that on December 2, 1967 she lost a Marshall Field & Company credit card bearing her husband\u2019s name. The State then rested its case. Defendant chose to rest his case without calling any further witnesses and the court thereupon entered a finding of guilty. We proceed to a consideration of defendant\u2019s first point.\nHe argues that the evidence presented by the State fails to establish two essential elements of the offense with which he is charged: (1) an intent to defraud, and (2) that he had ever used a credit card \u201cissued\u201d to another.\nIt is well established that intent is a state of mind which, if not admitted, can be shown by surrounding circumstances. (People v. Coolidge, 26 Ill.2d 533, 187 N.E.2d 694.) In the instant case the evidence reveals that defendant sought to purchase a pair of gloves by using a credit card bearing the name of Robert R. Brinkman, that he signed Brinkman\u2019s name to the sales slip, that Brinkman had not consented to his use of the card and that he (defendant) ran from the scene while the sales clerk was awaiting the arrival of a store detective. These circumstances sufficiently establish defendant\u2019s fradulent intent.\nDefendant also contends that the evidence does not establish that the credit card here involved was ever \u201cissued to another.\u201d He argues that issuance can only be established through direct testimony that Marshall Field & Company actually distributed the card to Robert Brinkman and that \u201cmere testimony of receipt\u201d is insufficient. As before stated, Robert Brinkman testified that he received the credit card marked Plaintiffs Exhibit A after he had made an application therefor to Marshall Field & Company. The top portion of the card was green and written thereon in white script letters was the name, \u201cMarshall Field & Company.\u201d Also printed clearly on the face of the card was the name Robert R. Brinkman. Evidence that a credit card was received in the due course of mail delivery and in response to an application is probative of issuance to the addressee. (See L. W. Hubbell Fertilizer Co. v. Jacobellis, 195 Ill.App. 410; Wigmore, Evidence, VII, \u00a7 2153, p. 611 (3rd Ed. 1940); McCormick, Evidence, \u00a7 192, p. 404 (1954).) The trial court properly concluded that the credit card used by the defendant had been issued to Robert R. Brinkman by Marshall Field & Company.\nDefendant\u2019s contention that the credit card should have been excluded from evidence on the ground that it had not been sufficiently identified is without merit. Robert Brinkman testified that Plaintiff\u2019s Exhibit A for identification, which was a Marshall Field & Company credit card bearing his name, was received by him in response to his application. That testimony, obviously believed by the trial court, established the fact that the credit card subsequently used by defendant belonged to Robert Brinkman. In a trial without a jury the credibility of a witness is for the court to decide and its determination of the issue will not be lightly set aside.\nThe judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nLEIGHTON, P. J., and STAMOS, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE SCHWARTZ"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bernard N. Brody, and William J. Nellis, of Chicago, for appellants.",
      "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and Michael J. Goldstein, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis M. Enright, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 54187;\nFirst District\nSeptember 28, 1971.\nBernard N. Brody, and William J. Nellis, of Chicago, for appellants.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and Michael J. Goldstein, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0654-01",
  "first_page_order": 674,
  "last_page_order": 677
}