{
  "id": 2919796,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thaddeus J. Tecza, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Tecza",
  "decision_date": "1972-04-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 56270",
  "first_page": "1058",
  "last_page": "1061",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "4 Ill. App. 3d 1058"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "181 N.E.2d 143",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "145"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Ill.2d 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2802161
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "354"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/24/0350-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 386,
    "char_count": 6378,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.731,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3465242568196061
    },
    "sha256": "b292d961cf89e843c0896bd6aa1517ccc22dfcfd1fb06b2012fae97fff2cbd98",
    "simhash": "1:8b001524ff63ac7a",
    "word_count": 1107
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:19.595106+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. Thaddeus J. Tecza, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DRUCKER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAfter a bench trial defendant was convicted of Criminal Trespass to Land and fined $85 and $5 court costs. In his pro se appeal he raises the following issues: (1) whether the State proved the notice element of trespass beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) whether the trial judge improperly introduced into the proceeding his personal knowledge of the site of the trespass; and (3) whether the defendant was improperly fined.\nTestimony of Officer Ferenzi, called by the State:\nHe is a uniformed security guard at Navy Pier in Chicago. On May 3, 1971, at 2:30 in the afternoon while guarding the front entrance to Navy Pier the defendant approached him and asked if he could enter the port area to see the ships. He told defendant that the area is restricted and he could not enter.\nA few minutes later the defendant entered the front of the building which is open to the public. There is another set of doors after one enters the building which is an entrance for city electricians and plumbers. The defendant went through those doors into the restricted area and jumped over the door into the main truck gate.\nThe witness called to the defendant and told him he was in a restricted area, that he was trespassing. The defendant turned around and looked at Ferenzi, walked a little further on and then spoke to the other officer who was assigned to the gate. Ferenzi called to the defendant again, told him that he was trespassing and that he had to leave.\nThe defendant came back, climbed up on the dock and came up to Ferenzi who asked the defendant for identification. The defendant took out his identification, showed it to him and put it back into his pocket. Ferenzi told the defendant he had to see Iris identification to make out a field contact card on him but defendant refused to give him Iris identification. He told the defendant he could be arrested for trespassing and defendant said, \u201cGo ahead and arrest me.\u201d He arrested the defendant. Testimony of Thaddeus J. Tecza, defendant:\nHe entered the second set of doors in order to ask the guard (referred to by Ferenzi as \u201cthe other officer\u201d) where he could get into \u201cthe area.\u201d\nHe denied that Ferenzi called to him. He was walking toward Ferenzi when Ferenzi asked to see some identification. He took his identification out of his wallet and handed it to Ferenzi.\nHe admitted there are areas marked off by \u201cno trespassing\u201d signs but denied he was in any of those areas.\nOn cross-examination he admitted that .there was a \u201cNo Admittance\u201d sign on the gate in the picture of Navy Pier shown to him by the State.\nDuring the trial the judge commented that he knew the area and that there was a \u201cno trespassing\u201d sign on the gate.\nOpinion\nDefendant\u2019s first contention is that the State failed to prove he had notice that his entry was forbidden. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 21 \u2014 3, provides:\n\u201cCriminal Trespass to Land.] (a) Whoever enters upon the land or any part thereof of another, after receiving, immediately prior to such entry, notice from the owner or occupant that such entry is forbidden, or remains upon the land of another after receiving notice from the owner or occupant to depart, shall be fined not to exceed $100 or imprisoned in a penal institution other than the penitentiary not to exceed 10 days.\n(b) A person has received notice from the owner or occupant within the meaning of Subsection (a) if he has been notified personally, either orally or in writing, or if a printed or written notice forbidding such entry has been conspicuously posted or exhibited at the main entrance to such land or the forbidden part thereof.\u201d\nThe defendant received oral notice of the restricted area from Officer Ferenzi when he first approached Navy Pier. Defendant\u2019s entrance into a restricted area via a non-forbidden entrance does not alter the fact that he had been told that the area was restricted. In addition, he should have known that if he had to \u201cjump over a door\u201d to enter, the area was not open to the general public. He also remained in the restricted area after the officer gave him oral notice that he was trespassing. The State clearly proved the notice element of criminal trespass to land.\nDefendant\u2019s second contention is that the judge\u2019s introduction of his personal knowledge of signs posted around the entrance to Navy Pier was improper. In People v. Wallenberg, 24 Ill.2d 350, 354, 181 N.E.2d 143,145, the court stated:\n\u201cThis court has held that the deliberations of the trial judge are limited to the record made before him during the course of the trial. A determination made by the trial judge based upon a private investigation by the court or based upon private knowledge of the court, untested by cross-examination, or any of the rules of evidence constitutes a denial of due process of law.\u201d (Citing cases.)\nThere is nothing in the excerpts of the record filed in the instant case which indicates that the judge\u2019s determination was based upon his personal knowledge but it appears rather to have been based upon the testimony of the State\u2019s witness that he had given defendant oral notice. The judge stated: \u201cI can\u2019t understand why you persisted in going into this area after being told not to go into there.\u201d [Emphasis added.] Therefore, the judge\u2019s comment was not prejudicial error.\nDefendant\u2019s third contention is that he was improperly sentenced under the following circumstances:\n\u201cTHE COURT: There will be a fine of $50 and $5 court costs.\nMR. TECZA: Is there any way I can appeal this decision? It is horribly unjust.\nTHE COURT: Maybe I should raise the fine. We will make the fine $85 and $5.\nMR. TECZA: Fine. On what basis are you raising it?\nTHE COURT: Contempt.\u201d\nWe find the increased fine without basis. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 615(b) (4), (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 110A, par. 615(b) (4)), we reduce the fine to $50 and $5 court costs.\nThe finding of guilty is affirmed and the fine is reduced to $50 and $5 costs.\nJudgment affirmed; fine modified.\nLORENZ, P. J., and ENGLISH, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DRUCKER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thaddeus J. Tecza, pro se.",
      "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and James R. Truschke, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thaddeus J. Tecza, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 56270;\nFirst District\nApril 14, 1972.\nThaddeus J. Tecza, pro se.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and James R. Truschke, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "1058-01",
  "first_page_order": 1078,
  "last_page_order": 1081
}