{
  "id": 222634,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by the Village of Island Lake, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LARRY R. LARSON, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Larson",
  "decision_date": "1998-05-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 2\u201497\u20140676",
  "first_page": "647",
  "last_page": "649",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "296 Ill. App. 3d 647"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "91 Ill. App. 3d 870",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3147614
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "873"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/91/0870-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 Ill. App. 3d 738",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3478227
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "742"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/173/0738-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "242 Ill. App. 3d 725",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5119736
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "727"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/242/0725-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ill. 2d 430",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5377462
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "433"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/36/0430-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 Ill. App. 3d 347",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3585500
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "353"
        },
        {
          "page": "353"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/170/0347-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 Ill. 2d 501",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2905198
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "505"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/47/0501-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. 2d 76",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2856024
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "78-79"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/40/0076-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 353,
    "char_count": 5324,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.746,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37573715687671366
    },
    "sha256": "06d46cd7b786e4c4f5b41df115c2ab4eb5f3712b4ddbf76c7a77e05e7bd6b4d3",
    "simhash": "1:2233d48dd1ef0874",
    "word_count": 878
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:46.961592+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by the Village of Island Lake, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LARRY R. LARSON, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE GEIGER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Larry Larson, was charged by complaint with reckless driving (625 ILCS 5/11 \u2014 503(a) (West 1996)). After the State presented evidence at his bench trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging that it was void because it did not describe the actual conduct on which the charge was based (see 725 ILCS 5/111 \u2014 3(a)(3) (West 1996)). The trial court granted the motion, and the State appeals (see 145 111. 2d R 604(a)(1)).\nThe State argues that the complaint, though alleging no facts, was sufficient under the special standard of People v. Tammen, 40 Ill. 2d 76 (1968). Defendant responds that Tammen applies only to Illinois uniform traffic tickets (see 134 Ill. 2d R. 552), as opposed to other charging instruments, including the long-form complaint used here. We agree with the defendant and affirm.\nLaura Leicht, the citizen complainant, signed the sworn complaint on November 6, 1996. The complaint charges that, on or about 8:20 a.m. that day, defendant committed a misdemeanor, reckless driving, \u201cin that he operated a car [therein described] upon Hyacinth Terrace in the vicinity of Ralph Court with willful and wanton disregard for the life, limb and safety of the public.\u201d Officer Scott Gaithman\u2019s signature attested that Gaithman read the defendant his rights on November 6, 1996. Gaithman prepared the complaint and served it on defendant on November 6, 1996.\nAfter the State presented its evidence at the defendant\u2019s bench trial, the defendant argued for the first time that the complaint was void because it did not specify the nature and elements of the reckless driving charge. The court agreed and dismissed the complaint. The State timely appealed.\nAlthough the parties\u2019 stipulated statement of facts calls the judgment a \u201cdirected finding,\u201d the parties agree that the trial court never decided defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence but dismissed the complaint as legally inadequate. The court\u2019s written order is to the same effect. Therefore, the State may appeal under Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) (145 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1)).\nThe State argues that, because the defendant was charged with a misdemeanor traffic offense, the complaint was not void for lack of specificity and the defendant could not challenge it for the first time after his trial began. We disagree.\nGenerally, a criminal complaint that lacks the necessary certainty to charge an offense is void and may be attacked at any time. People v. Heard, 47 Ill. 2d 501, 505 (1970). A charging instrument must set forth the nature and elements of the offense charged. 725 ILCS 5/111 \u2014 3(a)(3) (West 1996); People v. Pena, 170 Ill. App. 3d 347, 353 (1988). In the reckless driving context, a complaint must set the particular act or acts that comprised the offense. People v. Griffin, 36 Ill. 2d 430, 433 (1967); Pena, 170 Ill. App. 3d at 353. The complaint here does not do so. The State does not contend that the complaint satisfies the Griffin rule. Instead, the State argues that, under Tammen, the complaint need not set out the defendant\u2019s allegedly criminal acts because it charges him with a misdemeanor traffic offense. We disagree.\nIn Tammen, the court held that an Illinois uniform traffic ticket sufficiently informs a defendant of the nature and elements of the offense by naming and citing the offense even if it does not specify the nature and elements of the offense, i.e., the defendant\u2019s specific acts. The court explained that the uniform traffic ticket is used only for misdemeanors and is written by the arresting officer (rather than a State\u2019s Attorney), ordinarily at the time the offense is committed. Therefore, naming and citing the offense ordinarily will inform the defendant sufficiently of why he is being charged. Tammen, 40 Ill. 2d at 78-79.\nTammen\u2019s language limits its special rule to uniform traffic tickets. We have recognized that prosecutions based on uniform traffic tickets are sui generis and must be distinguished from those based on \u201ccriminal complaints, indictments, and informations.\u201d Village of Huntley v. Oltmann, 242 Ill. App. 3d 725, 727 (1993); see also People v. Schultz, 173 Ill. App. 3d 738, 742 (1988); People v. Domovich, 91 Ill. App. 3d 870, 873 (1980).\nAs the defendant notes, the State has cited no cases applying Tammen to a charging instrument other than a uniform traffic ticket. Also, as the defendant points out, the difference between the complaint here and a standard traffic ticket is not trivial. The complaint relies on information from a citizen rather than on the observations of the officer who drafted it. This procedure could routinely allow a substantial delay between the alleged offense and the drafting or issuance of the complaint. Allowing a nonspecific charge to be made by such a complaint would not be consistent with the reasoning of Tam-men.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of McHenry County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nINGLIS and McLAREN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE GEIGER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael W. Feetterer, of Roth & Feetterer, P.C., of McHenry, for appellant.",
      "Thomas W. Gooch III, of Wysocki & Gooch, of Wauconda, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by the Village of Island Lake, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LARRY R. LARSON, Defendant-Appellee.\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201497\u20140676\nOpinion filed May 21, 1998.\nMichael W. Feetterer, of Roth & Feetterer, P.C., of McHenry, for appellant.\nThomas W. Gooch III, of Wysocki & Gooch, of Wauconda, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0647-01",
  "first_page_order": 665,
  "last_page_order": 667
}