{
  "id": 1725075,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUSAN C. SARGEANT, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Sargeant",
  "decision_date": "1997-09-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 1-96-4082",
  "first_page": "508",
  "last_page": "512",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "292 Ill. App. 3d 508"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "564 N.E.2d 803",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 Ill. 2d 89",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5573939
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "130"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/139/0089-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "584 N.E.2d 963",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 Ill. App. 3d 31",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5256912
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "49"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/223/0031-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "370 N.E.2d 520",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. 2d 10",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5456813
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "18"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/69/0010-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "578 N.E.2d 1176",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 Ill. App. 3d 884",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        8499451
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "887"
        },
        {
          "page": "887-88"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/218/0884-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "598 N.E.2d 948",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 Ill. App. 3d 885",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        8499465
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "898"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/232/0885-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "651 N.E.2d 744",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 Ill. App. 3d 59",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "61"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "413 N.E.2d 1277",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 Ill. 2d 87",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5473354
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "90-91"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/83/0087-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "412 N.E.2d 501",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "507"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 Ill. 2d 234",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5475193
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "247"
        },
        {
          "page": "247"
        },
        {
          "page": "247"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/82/0234-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "591 N.E.2d 449",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 Ill. 2d 32",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3283258
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "38"
        },
        {
          "page": "38"
        },
        {
          "page": "39-40"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/148/0032-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "676 N.E.2d 665",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 Ill. 2d 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        295798
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/175/0148-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 473,
    "char_count": 6408,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.776,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.19772915037321e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4759007185361
    },
    "sha256": "401d4522ec609205bf6134700ae46254770543233ebdfb0fccb0b51d10cece95",
    "simhash": "1:32e729cf6fde0bbd",
    "word_count": 1026
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:39:42.526448+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. SUSAN C. SARGEANT, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE CERDA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Susan Sargeant, was charged with theft by unauthorized control and theft by deception of property in excess of $100,000 from her former employer, Graphic Approach, Inc. (Graphic). 720 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 8 (West 1994). Defendant filed a motion in limine to bar the State\u2019s handwriting expert. After the trial court granted the motion, the State appealed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1). 134 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1).\nRule 604(a)(1) allows the State to appeal a pretrial suppression order if the substantive effect of the trial court\u2019s order granting the defendant\u2019s motion in limine is to suppress evidence and the suppression substantially impairs the State\u2019s ability to prosecute the case. People v. Truitt, 175 Ill. 2d 148, 676 N.E.2d 665 (1997); People v. Keith, 148 Ill. 2d 32, 38, 591 N.E.2d 449 (1992); People v. Young, 82 Ill. 2d 234, 247, 412 N.E.2d 501, 507 (1980); 145 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1). Although in limine motions usually involve evid\u00e9ntiary matters, the substantive effect of the court\u2019s order, not the label of the motion, controls appealability under Rule 604(a)(1). Keith, 148 Ill. 2d at 38; People v. Phipps, 83 Ill. 2d 87, 90-91, 413 N.E.2d 1277 (1980).\nTo exercise its right of appeal, the State need only file a notice of appeal together with a certificate of impairment. Young, 82 Ill. 2d at 247; 145 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1). This court may rely on the good-faith evaluation of the prosecutor and need not second-guess the impact of the suppression order to determine appellate jurisdiction. Keith, 148 Ill. 2d at 39-40; Young, 82 Ill. 2d at 247; People v. Krause, 213 Ill. App. 3d 59, 61, 651 N.E.2d 744 (1995). Since the State filed the requisite certificate of impairment in this c\u00e1se, we have jurisdiction.\nDefendant is a former employee of Graphic, which alleged that she wrote over 100 unauthorized checks on the company\u2019s corporate account, payable to herself, her husband, and her two children. According to defendant, she left Graphic because she became aware of unethical and fraudulent business practices being conducted by Graphic\u2019s president, Mike Neenan, who is the complaining witness in this case. After defendant left Graphic, she began operating Orion Offset, Inc., which competes with Graphic.\nShortly after Orion began operations, Neenan filed a criminal complaint alleging that defendant wrongfully appropriated money belonging to Graphic. According to the State, an accountant hired after defendant left Graphic discovered the alleged theft while conducting an audit of Graphic\u2019s books.\nNeenan also filed a civil complaint against Orion and defendant, alleging that defendant wrongfully appropriated money belonging to Graphic, and defendant and Orion tortiously interfered with contractual relations between Graphic and its customers. In response, Orion filed a counterclaim alleging tortious interference with Orion\u2019s prospective business expectancies and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. 815 ILCS 505/2 (West 1994). Defendant filed a counterclaim alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from Neenan\u2019s sexual harassment of her. Subsequently, all parties to the civil lawsuit settled the civil matter and dismissed their claims against each other.\nIn the criminal case, defendant\u2019s theory of defense is in part that Neenan\u2019s baseless accusations are in retaliation for defendant challenging Neenan\u2019s fraudulent conduct and organizing a competing company. Defendant maintains that Neenan authorized her to use the money he now alleges she misappropriated.\nDuring discovery in the civil case, defendant tendered a photocopy of a memo allegedly signed by Neenan confirming that authorization. In the criminal case, the State tendered an October 26, 1993, letter from James L. Hayes, a handwriting expert, to Gregory Adamski, one of the attorneys who represented Graphic and Neenan in the civil lawsuit. In his letter, Hayes stated:\n\"Based upon the examinations and comparisons conducted, I am of the opinion that the questioned signature cannot be identified as having been made by [Neenan], Characteristics within the questioned signature, such as tremorous line quality and movement variations, indicate the signature may be an attempt at simulation. Should the original questioned exhibit become available, I will need to conduct a further analysis.\u201d\nExpert testimony that is probative and relevant should be allowed, and evidence is relevant where the fact or circumstances offered tend to prove or disprove a disputed fact or to render the matter in issue more or less probable. People v. Brown, 232 Ill. App. 3d 885, 898, 598 N.E.2d 948 (1992). An expert whose qualifications and experience give him or her knowledge that is beyond the knowledge of the average fact finder and whose testimony will aid, and not invade, the province of the fact finder in reaching its decision should be allowed to testify. People v. Masor, 218 Ill. App. 3d 884, 887, 578 N.E.2d 1176 (1991). While an expert witness may testify in terms of \"could have\u201d or \"might have\u201d (County of Cook v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 69 Ill. 2d 10, 18, 370 N.E.2d 520 (1977)), his opinion should not be admitted if it is inconclusive or speculative (Wakeford v. Rodehouse Restaurants of Missouri, Inc., 223 Ill. App. 3d 31, 49, 584 N.E.2d 963 (1991)). In this case the handwriting expert\u2019s opinion was based on a photocopy of a writing sample and was inconclusive, tentative, and speculative. We do not know what his opinion would be if the original writing were to be examined.\nAs a result, in this case, Hayes\u2019s testimony was inadmissible. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we are affirming its suppression order. People v. Hayes, 139 Ill. 2d 89, 130, 564 N.E.2d 803 (1990); Masor, 218 Ill. App. 3d at 887-88.\nBased on the foregoing, the circuit court order is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nWOLFSON, P.J., and BURKE, J\u201e concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE CERDA"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Ann Benedek, and William D. Carroll, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.",
      "Katten, Muchin & Zavis, of Chicago (Ted S. Helwig and Orrin S. Shifrin, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUSAN C. SARGEANT, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 1 \u2014 96\u20144082\nOpinion filed September 11, 1997.\nRichard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Ann Benedek, and William D. Carroll, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.\nKatten, Muchin & Zavis, of Chicago (Ted S. Helwig and Orrin S. Shifrin, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0508-01",
  "first_page_order": 526,
  "last_page_order": 530
}