{ "id": 3626262, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES LAVAS, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Lavas", "decision_date": "1983-02-07", "docket_number": "No. 81-1181", "first_page": "196", "last_page": "202", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "113 Ill. App. 3d 196" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "88 Ill. 2d 552", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "427 N.E.2d 1001", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "101 Ill. App. 3d 181", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3081324 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "185" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/101/0181-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 Ill. 2d 632", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "396 N.E.2d 827", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "77 Ill. App. 3d 882", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3290111 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "888" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/77/0882-01" ] }, { "cite": "394 N.E.2d 430", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "75 Ill. App. 3d 418", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3277258 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "427" }, { "page": "428" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/75/0418-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.E.2d 327", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 Ill. App. 3d 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2967734 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "279" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/40/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "406 N.E.2d 23", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 1050", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3204023 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1054" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/84/1050-01" ] }, { "cite": "277 N.E.2d 541", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 Ill. App. 3d 734", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2748786 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "736" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/2/0734-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 Ill. 2d 579", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 N.E.2d 81", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 Ill. App. 3d 583", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2722059 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "585" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/43/0583-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 Ill. 2d 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "399 N.E.2d 1368", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "80 Ill. App. 3d 708", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3231897 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "713" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/80/0708-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 Ill. 2d 623", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "393 N.E.2d 1098", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "75 Ill. App. 3d 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3273925 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "286" }, { "page": "286" }, { "page": "286" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/75/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "430 N.E.2d 1346", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "88 Ill. 2d 129", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3083469 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "151" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/88/0129-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 S. Ct. 2328", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 L. Ed. 2d 849", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "451 U.S. 990", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6345315, 6344164, 6343270, 6343944, 6343049, 6345162, 6345515, 6344397, 6343472, 6344694, 6344950, 6343705 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/451/0990-11", "/us/451/0990-06", "/us/451/0990-02", "/us/451/0990-05", "/us/451/0990-01", "/us/451/0990-10", "/us/451/0990-12", "/us/451/0990-07", "/us/451/0990-03", "/us/451/0990-08", "/us/451/0990-09", "/us/451/0990-04" ] }, { "cite": "82 Ill. 2d 586", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "411 N.E.2d 956", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "89 Ill. App. 3d 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5542125 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "526" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/89/0513-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 N.E.2d 291", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "66 Ill. 2d 346", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5464792 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "349" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/66/0346-01" ] }, { "cite": "409 N.E.2d 48", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 Ill. App. 3d 306", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3178119 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "310" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/87/0306-01" ] }, { "cite": "411 N.E.2d 543", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "89 Ill. App. 3d 135", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5539417 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "138" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/89/0135-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 Ill. 2d 561", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "430 N.E.2d 731", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "103 Ill. App. 3d 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5480104 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "272" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/103/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "433 N.E.2d 343", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 Ill. App. 3d 833", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5477853 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "840" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/104/0833-01" ] }, { "cite": "326 N.E.2d 755", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 Ill. 2d 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5415030 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "280-81" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/60/0278-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 706, "char_count": 13604, "ocr_confidence": 0.762, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.701058462374395e-08, "percentile": 0.45354400970867415 }, "sha256": "fbb40066c3010133a874df395b3274f4f4f2474539307f360bda2cf8cea5353a", "simhash": "1:53e23566670235ad", "word_count": 2235 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:40:35.449940+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. JAMES LAVAS, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE GOLDBERG\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAfter a jury trial, James Lavas (defendant) was convicted of aggravated battery and battery. He was found not guilty on two counts of armed robbery, two counts of armed violence, and three additional counts of aggravated battery. Defendant was sentenced to four years for aggravated battery and \u201cup to one year\u201d for battery, to run concurrently. Defendant appeals.\nIn their testimony, the two complainants corroborated each other on most important points. Both testified they were walking home together from a \u201cgay disco\u201d at about 3 a.m. on February 23, 1980. Complainant Lindblad testified he had previously injured his ankle. He leaned on complainant Bartczyzyn for support. Complainants were called by two men standing in a well-lighted gangway. One or both of these men directed obscenities to the complainants. These two men held metal rods or pipes. The men were identified as defendant and Joseph Ganshirt.\nGanshirt, an accomplice of defendant, testified for the State. After plea bargaining, Ganshirt pleaded guilty and was sentenced to the work release program for two months and to probation for four years.\nAfter receiving threats, complainant Lindblad gave the defendant $10 or $11. Bartczyzyn told defendant he had only some change. Ganshirt struck at Bartczyzyn with his rod. Bartczyzyn blocked the blow and struck Ganshirt with his right hand. A car approached and Lindblad ran to the car. Defendant struck Bartczyzyn on the back of his head with a rod. The police arrived in a few minutes. Bartczyzyn was X-rayed at the hospital. Thirteen stitches were required for his head wound.\nAt a lineup in the police station, Bartczyzyn could not identify the defendant but still stated he thought defendant was one of his attackers. Lindblad saw defendant strike Bartczyzyn on the back of the head with a metal pipe. He identified defendant at the police lineup and in court.\nThe accomplice Ganshirt testified he was with defendant and three other men. They saw the two complainants. Defendant demanded money from the complainants. Defendant struck one of the complainants with a pipe. Ganshirt testified he did not see any money pass from one man to another.\nThe defendant called police investigator Paul. He conducted the lineup that night. Bartczyzyn could not positively identify defendant because he was too busy fighting off Ganshirt, the accomplice. Lindblad identified defendant without doubt. The officer also testified Ganshirt told him verbal advances of a sexual nature were made by the complainants.\nDaniel Duran testified he was with defendant and Ganshirt. He saw defendant and Ganshirt confront the complainants. Ganshirt held a pipe but defendant was not armed. Ganshirt hit one of the complainants with a pipe. A scuffle started and the witness fled. He did not see any money change hands.\nDefendant testified he was in the car with Ganshirt, Duran and three other people. Ganshirt left the car with a pipe in his hand. Defendant asked the other men to stop Ganshirt but no one cooperated. Defendant followed Ganshirt alone. Defendant was unarmed. Defendant asked Ganshirt to return to the car but the latter refused. Ganshirt then hit one of the complainants with a pipe. A fight ensued and defendant testified, \u201cI just jumped on the guy, you know.\u201d Defendant denied he hit any person with a pipe and denied he asked complainants for money.\nI\nDefendant urges inconsistency between the verdicts of acquittal and those of guilt. It is the settled law of Illinois that neither legal nor logical \u25a0 consistency is required in the verdicts of a jury. The only issue is whether the verdict of guilt is properly supported by the evidence. We find this proposition firmly established in People v. Dawson (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 278, 280-81, 326 N.E.2d 755. Dawson has been followed by this court in a number of cases including People v. Harris (1982), 104 Ill. App. 3d 833, 840, 433 N.E.2d 343, People v. Brandstetter (1982), 103 Ill. App. 3d 259, 272, 430 N.E.2d 731, appeal denied (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 561, People v. Depper (1980), 89 Ill. App. 3d 135, 138, 411 N.E.2d 543, and People v. Johnson (1980), 87 Ill. App. 3d 306, 310, 409 N.E.2d 48. We reject defendant\u2019s contention.\nOn the issue of reasonable doubt, the defendant in effect testified he was attempting to prevent the incident but he still remained to become an active participant in the fight. The testimony of the two complainants is strong and unimpeached and sufficient in itself to constitute proof of defendant\u2019s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to convict. (People v. Wilson (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 346, 349, 362 N.E.2d 291.) This is true even though the accomplice testified he expected leniency. (People v. Brisbon (1980), 89 Ill. App. 3d 513, 526, 411 N.E.2d 956, ap peal denied (1981), 82 Ill. 2d 586, cert. denied (1981), 451 U.S. 990, 68 L. Ed. 2d 849, 101 S. Ct. 2328.) In the instant case the accessory testified he had received leniency. However, the testimony of the accomplice in the case before us is most strongly corroborated by the testimony of the two complainants and to a limited extent by defendant\u2019s own testimony. A reviewing court should \u201cnot disturb the jury\u2019s verdict of guilty unless the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of defendant\u2019s guilt.\u201d People v. Lewis (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 129, 151, 430 N.E.2d 1346.\nThe record before us convinces us strongly that the guilt of defendant of aggravated battery and battery has been entirely proved beyond reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.\nII\nThe trial court refused to allow introduction of defendant\u2019s previous conviction for possession of a controlled substance. However the judge inadvertently read to the jury the following instruction to which the court had sustained defendant\u2019s objection (Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 3.13 (1968)):\n\u201cEvidence of the defendant\u2019s previous conviction of a crime is to be considered by you only insofar as it may affect his credibility as a witness, and must not be considered by you as evidence of his guilt of the crime with which he is charged.\u201d\nImmediately after the jury retired for deliberations, counsel for defendant informed the trial judge of his error in reading the above quoted instruction. The judge took that instruction from the group of written instructions to be given the jury and made the following statement to the jury:\n\u201cLadies and gentlemen, I am giving you the written instructions that I have along with the evidence; and you are instructed to follow the written instructions on the law as they are written here. If I misread -- and I might have because, you know, when you go through a number of instructions, it is very possible that I misread one of the instructions or read something to you that really isn\u2019t here - but you follow the instructions as written in these forms. Okay.\u201d\nDefendant argues the reading of the refused instruction by the trial judge was prejudicial and constituted reversible error. We disagree.\nIn People v. Lewis (1979), 75 Ill. App. 3d 259, 286, 393 N.E.2d 1098, appeal denied (1979), 79 Ill. 2d 623, we held the inadvertent reading of an instruction which had been withdrawn by the prosecution, was harmless when only the proper instructions were given in writing to the jury before its deliberations.\nIn Lewis, we do not find that the trial court expressly admonished the jury to consider only the instructions as written. In Lewis, this court stated (75 Ill. App. 3d 259, 286):\n\u201cIn the case at bar, the error in the reading of the instructions was corrected by the submission of correct, written instructions to the jury in the jury room. Thus, we find that the inadvertent reading of the instruction in question was harmless error.\u201d\nFollowing Lewis, in People v. Gomez (1980), 80 Ill. App. 3d 708, 399 N.E.2d 1368, appeal denied (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 585, the trial court inadvertently read to the jury an instruction which had been tendered by defendant but then withdrawn. No objection was made by defendant until the jury had begun to deliberate. The trial court immediately recalled the jury and admonished them that the instruction in question should be disregarded. Citing Lewis, this court held that the prompt action of the trial court \u201ccoupled with the fact that only correct, written instructions had been submitted to the jury renders this error harmless.\u201d 80 Ill. App. 3d 708, 713.\nDefendant cites People v. Wilson (1976), 43 Ill. App. 3d 583, 357 N.E.2d 81, appeal denied (1977), 65 Ill. 2d 579, and People v. McCauley (1972), 2 Ill. App. 3d 734, 277 N.E.2d 541. In Wilson, the trial judge failed to read the same limiting instruction regarding the defendant\u2019s previous conviction which was read inadvertently in the case at bar. We reversed defendant\u2019s conviction because \u201c[t]here [was] nothing in the record which affirmatively show[ed] that [the proper instruction] did in fact go to the jury room.\u201d 43 Ill. App. 3d 583, 585. See also People v. Lewis (1979), 75 Ill. App. 3d 259, 286.\nIn McCauley, defendant was charged with battery of a police officer. However, the jury was mistakenly instructed regarding the crimes of attempted escape, and resisting arrest. We held giving of the instructions regarding specific crimes for which defendant was not charged, was error. People v. McCauley (1972), 2 Ill. App. 3d 734, 736.\nIn the case at bar it is undisputed the trial judge gave only the proper written instructions to the jury. The jury was expressly admonished by the trial judge to consider only the instructions tendered them in written form, therefore, the case is distinguishable from Wilson and McCauley. We find no error in this regard.\nIll\nDefendant contends the trial court erred in not allowing defendant to question the defense witness Daniel Duran concerning the reputation of a previous witness, Joseph Ganshirt, for truthfulness, and in not allowing Ganshirt to refresh his recollection with a police report.\nWhile being cross-examined, Ganshirt was asked whether he had told Officer Paul that the fight ensued after complainants had made \u201cverbal advances.\u201d The witness replied he could not remember. Defense counsel was not allowed to show Ganshirt Officer Paul\u2019s police report to refresh his recollection.\n\u201cThe manner and mode of refreshing recollection is within the sound discretion of the trial court.\u201d (People v. Black (1980), 84 Ill. App. 3d 1050, 1054, 406 N.E.2d 23.) The decision of the trial court will not be disturbed on review absent an abuse of discretion. People v. Van Dyk (1976), 40 Ill. App. 3d 275, 279, 352 N.E.2d 327, appeal denied (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 562.\nWe find no abuse of discretion here. The witness had no connection with the actual preparation of the report. The officer was unavailable to establish the veracity of the report. In any event, there could not have been prejudice to defendant. Police Investigator Paul testified later, and he related Ganshirt\u2019s prior inconsistent statement. Therefore, the impeachment was perfected and was fully before the jury even without the witness having Ganshirt inspect the police report.\nSimilarly, the determination of a sufficient basis of knowledge of a reputation witness is within the discretion of the trial court. (People v. Bingham (1979), 75 Ill. App. 3d 418, 427, 394 N.E.2d 430.) In the case at bar, defendant did not make an offer of proof as to the specific basis of the witness\u2019 knowledge of Ganshirt\u2019s reputation. People v. Bingham (1979), 75 Ill. App. 3d 418, 428; see also People v. Dorff (1979), 77 Ill. App. 3d 882, 888, 396 N.E.2d 827, appeal denied (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 632.\nIn addition, this attempted impeachment of Ganshirt would have been strictly cumulative. \u201cA trial court has the power to exclude evidence which is cumulative.\u201d (People v. Aldridge (1981), 101 Ill. App. 3d 181, 185, 427 N.E.2d 1001, appeal denied (1982), 88 Ill. 2d 552.) Consequently we find no prejudice to defendant. Ganshirt was impeached extensively by defense counsel. The jury was aware of his criminal involvement in the instant crime, his admission of guilt, and his prior inconsistent statement to the police investigator. Furthermore, the jury was specifically instructed to scrutinize Ganshirt\u2019s testimony with suspicion because of these factors. Testimony as to the witness\u2019 general reputation for veracity would not significantly alter the jury\u2019s impression of his testimony. The jury verdicts were eminently fair to defendant.\nFor these reasons it is ordered that the judgment appealed from is affirmed as regards the conviction for aggravated battery. We add that the maximum sentence for a simple battery, a Class A misdemeanor, is 364 days. (111. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, pars. 12 \u2014 3, 1005 \u2014 8\u20143.) We find the defendant was properly sentenced to only 364 days for this offense, concurrently. The mittimus herein shall be amended to read accordingly. As thus amended the conviction for battery is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nBUCKLEY, P.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE GOLDBERG" } ], "attorneys": [ "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Emily Eisner, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.", "Richard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Michael E. Shabat, Bruce A. Cardello, and Larry J. Crown, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES LAVAS, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 81\u20141181\nOpinion filed February 7, 1983.\n\u2014 Rehearing denied March 28, 1983.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Emily Eisner, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nRichard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Michael E. Shabat, Bruce A. Cardello, and Larry J. Crown, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0196-01", "first_page_order": 218, "last_page_order": 224 }