{
  "id": 5795911,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEBBIE CARLSON, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Carlson",
  "decision_date": "1991-11-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 5\u201489\u20140592",
  "first_page": "445",
  "last_page": "447",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "221 Ill. App. 3d 445"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "129 N.E.2d 164",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Ill. 2d 414",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2708210
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/6/0414-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 232,
    "char_count": 3633,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.756,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17044217635854444
    },
    "sha256": "388c29e4104eaf08b8dc9fb9bd0822a7d7c1ae72f2576e2aac69016884524ed2",
    "simhash": "1:fa503459639c1ec6",
    "word_count": 601
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:34.404944+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. DEBBIE CARLSON, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE HOWERTON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, charged with the murder of her daughter, was found not guilty by reason of insanity and was remanded to the Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities for evaluation pursuant to section 5 \u2014 2\u20144(a) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 2\u20144(a)). An evaluation report was submitted to the court, and a hearing was held at which the circuit court found defendant subject to involuntary admission and in need of mental health services on an inpatient basis. The record gives no indication that defendant was present at that hearing.\nDefendant makes numerous claims on appeal. We need only address one: that the failure of the record to indicate defendant\u2019s presence at the commitment hearing or waiver of her presence by her counsel, or that her attendance at the hearing would subject her to serious physical or emotional harm, requires reversal. We agree.\nSection 5 \u2014 2\u20144 of the Unified Code of Corrections, entitled \u201cProceedings after Acquittal by Reason of Insanity\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 2\u20144), provides in part:\n\u201cAfter a finding or verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity ***, the defendant shall be ordered to the Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities for an evaluation as to whether he is subject to involuntary admission or in need of mental health services. ***\nThe Department shall provide the Court with a report of its evaluation *** [and] [t]he Court shall hold a hearing as provided under the Mental Health and Disabilities Code [(Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 911/2, par. 1 \u2014 100 et seq.)] to determine if the individual is: (a) subject to involuntary admission; (b) in need of mental health services on an inpatient basis; (c) in need of mental health services on an outpatient basis; (d) a person not in need of mental health services.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 2\u20144(a).\nSection 3 \u2014 806 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 911/2, par. 3 \u2014 806) states:\n\u201cThe respondent shall be present at any hearing under this Act unless his attorney waives his right to be present and the court is satisfied by a clear showing that the respondent\u2019s attendance would subject him to substantial risk of serious physical or emotional harm.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 911/2, par. 3\u2014 806.\nNeither of the requirements of section 3 \u2014 806 was satisfied. The record does not indicate that defendant was present or that her attorney waived her right to be present, nor does it show that her attendance would subject her to a substantial risk of serious physical or emotional harm. The statute is clear on its face and defendant\u2019s presence is required.\nWhere the record gives no indication that defendant was present, the law does not allow us to make that presumption. (See People v. Smith (1955), 6 Ill. 2d 414, 129 N.E.2d 164.) We must assume, therefore, that defendant was neither present nor waived her right to be present. We reverse and remand for a new hearing.\nReversed and remanded.\nHARRISON and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE HOWERTON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jeff M. Plesko, of Guardianship & Advocacy Commission, of Carbon-dale, for appellant.",
      "Robert Haida, State\u2019s Attorney, of Belleville (Kenneth R. Boyle, Stephen E. Norris, and Scott A. Manuel, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEBBIE CARLSON, Defendant-Appellant.\nFifth District\nNo. 5 \u2014 89\u20140592\nOpinion filed November 14, 1991.\n\u2014 Rehearing denied December 18, 1991.\nJeff M. Plesko, of Guardianship & Advocacy Commission, of Carbon-dale, for appellant.\nRobert Haida, State\u2019s Attorney, of Belleville (Kenneth R. Boyle, Stephen E. Norris, and Scott A. Manuel, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0445-01",
  "first_page_order": 467,
  "last_page_order": 469
}