{
  "id": 2516902,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack Clanton, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Clanton",
  "decision_date": "1973-12-19",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 58006, 58749 cons.",
  "first_page": "593",
  "last_page": "594",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 Ill. App. 3d 593"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "8 Ill.2d 604",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2716661
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/8/0604-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ill.2d 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2910797
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/50/0390-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 266,
    "char_count": 3541,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.762,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4746160733187455e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6599241886303023
    },
    "sha256": "2df985f16210544ecefb082ce7479206745dee644e729fb938410277a153c0f0",
    "simhash": "1:83181eb0d95a06b1",
    "word_count": 591
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:47:04.631682+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. Jack Clanton, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DIERINGER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Jack Clanton, was convicted of aggravated battery at a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County and was sentenced to a term of two to six years.\nOn appeal the defendant contends the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defense.\nOn May 29, 1971, the complainant, Robert Auston, returned to his home at 3810 West Fillmore between 2:30 and 2:40 in the afternoon. He stopped hix car on the street in front of his home and parked back of his brother-in-law\u2019s car, which was double parked alongside his brother\u2019s car. When his brother-in-law pulled away, he pulled up and double parked alongside his brother\u2019s car.\nFillmore is an east-west street with a north-south alley bisecting the 3800 block. When Auston saw a car in the south portion of the alley where the street and alley meet, he backed his car into the alley on the north side of the street. The car in the alley, driven by the defendant, drew alongside Auston\u2019s brother\u2019s car and directed profane language toward him. The complainant left his car, approached the defendant\u2019s car, and asked what the trouble was. The defendant responded, \u201cI don\u2019t like your driving.\u201d He then picked up a gun from the seat, shot Robert Auston in the jaw, and drove away.\nThe defendant testified he saw the complainant approach him with a knife in his hand and shot in self-defense. One eye-witness testified he saw the complainant approach the defendant and take something shiny out of his pocket but he did not know what it was. The trial judge found the testimony of this witness with respect to the location of himself and the principals\u2019 to be physically impossible.\nThe complainant, his brother, his father, and a neighbor, who was looking out her window at the time of the incident, all testified that neither the complainant nor his brother were armed.\nThe defendant contends the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defense. The basis of the argument apparently is the defendant\u2019s testimony that the complainant was coming at him with a knife, and the testimony of one witness who said he saw the complainant with something shiny in his hand. The law in Illinois with respect to the credibility of witnesses in bench trials is stated in People v. Arndt (1972), 50 Ill.2d 390, 396:\n\u201cThe credibility and weight to be given to the testimony of witnesses is a matter for the trial court\u2019s determination and will not be disturbed unless palpably erroneous.\u201d\nIt is also well settled that conflict in testimony does not of itself establish a reasonable doubt. (People v. Kelly (1956), 8 Ill.2d 604.) In this case the trial judge stated he found the testimony of the defense witness to be physically impossible and apparently chose not to believe the defendant\u2019s testimony. After reading the record we conclude there is substantial evidence of support the finding.\nFor these reasons the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nADESKO and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DIERINGER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Saul H. Brauner, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Kenneth L. Gillis, Mariann Twist, and Nicholas P. Iavarone, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack Clanton, Defendant-Appellant.\n(Nos. 58006, 58749 cons.;\nFirst District (4th Division)\nDecember 19, 1973.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Saul H. Brauner, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Kenneth L. Gillis, Mariann Twist, and Nicholas P. Iavarone, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0593-01",
  "first_page_order": 615,
  "last_page_order": 616
}