{
  "id": 2969040,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KENT L. ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Ellis",
  "decision_date": "1976-07-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 75-439",
  "first_page": "370",
  "last_page": "372",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "40 Ill. App. 3d 370"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "286 N.E.2d 769",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Ill. App. 3d 1045",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2468188
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/6/1045-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "346 Ill. 149",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5267689
      ],
      "year": 1949,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/346/0149-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "418 U.S. 488",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6173579
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/418/0488-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "365 Ill. 174",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2582619
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "179"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/365/0174-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 N.E.2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. 2d 220",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5390667
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/51/0220-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.E.2d 208",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "403 Ill. 320",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2620722
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/403/0320-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 382,
    "char_count": 6031,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.872,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08629788840971038
    },
    "sha256": "a94593d991a24f4f50bfa2b8154fa117f570c8401154132b92c734f5a59dc8d4",
    "simhash": "1:03a8daafface92e2",
    "word_count": 989
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:14.004939+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. KENT L. ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE HALLETT\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant appeals from an order of the trial court finding him in direct contempt of court and sentencing him to six months in prison. Defendant alleges that he was denied due process of law when he was subjected to a formal evidentiary hearing on an alleged contempt occurring in open court. We disagree and affirm.\nOn May 22, 1975, a pre-trial conference was held with the defendant being present. At the close of the conference, before a deputy in court could reach him, defendant turned and fled out the courtroom door. He was pursued and caught on the stairs of the courthouse. When defendant was returned to court the trial judge addressed him and indicated that he would be charged with direct contempt and that a hearing would be held at 1:30 in the afternoon. The court appointed counsel to assist defendant at these proceedings.\nAt the hearing held that afternoon the trial judge recounted his observation that he had seen defendant jump over a railing and run out the door of the courtroom. The judge commented that about 10 to 15 minutes later defendant, handcuffed, was returned to the court. Other witnesses testified to essentially the same courtroom conduct on defendant\u2019s part observed by the trial court and to seeing defendant run at full speed down the hall, pursued by a deputy sheriff. Two deputy sheriffs testified to apprehending defendant at the bottom of the courthouse stairway after a scuffle.\nDefendant, relying principally on People v. Harrison (1949), 403 Ill. 320, 86 N.E.2d 208, contends that when a judge knows of his own knowledge that certain matters have occurred in open court before him no testimony is required or permitted in a proceeding for direct contempt. In People v. Jashunsky (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 220, 282 N.E.2d 1, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected this contention citing the very case (Harrison) relied upon by defendant, when it stated, at Page 224, as follows:\n\u201cIt has been held that even though the charge be of direct contempt, that fact does not entirely preclude the judge from hearing evidence to fully establish the direct contempt. (People v. Harrison, 403 Ill. 320.) Where a direct contempt is committed in open court it is competent for the judge to proceed upon his personal knowledge of the facts and to punish the offender summarily without entering any rule against him and without hearing any evidence. However, when a direct contempt occurs in a constituent part of the court and not in the immediate presence of the judge as is the case here, extrinsic evidence is essential to substantiate the charge. In re Estate of Kelly, 365 Ill. 174. # # # \u201d\nSee also Taylor v. Hayes (1974), 418 U.S. 488, 41 L. Ed. 2d 897, 94 S. Ct. 2697. Defendant\u2019s contention is without merit.\nDefendant next ruges that the trial court erred in relying, in imposing judgment and sentence, upon evidence extrinsic to his own observation relating to defendant\u2019s contempt. In Jashunsky the Illinois Supreme Court sustained the conviction of two defendants where testimony of witnesses other than the corut were heard in support of defendant\u2019s guilt of direct contempt. Other cases have held that:\n\u201cMisbehavior constituting a contempt committed in any place set apart for the use of any constituent part of the court when it is in session is deemed to have been committed in the presence of the court and if contemptuous is a direct contempt. [Citations.]\u201d (In re Estate of Kelly (1937), 365 Ill. 174, 179. See also People v. Andalman (1931), 346 Ill. 149, and reference to the foregoing cases in Jashunsky and People v. Harrison (1949), 403 Ill. 320.)\nUnder the noted rule findings of direct contempt have been sustained where a forged will has been filed in the court clerk\u2019s office (Kelly) and where an attorney in disregard of the court\u2019s order filed papers in the court clerk\u2019s office (Andalman). In each of these cases the court sustained findings of direct contempt in circumstances where evidence extrinsic to the direct observations of the trial court was presented at a hearing.\nDefendant contends that this case is governed by People v. Thor (1972), 6 Ill. App. 3d 1045, 286 N.E.2d 769. In Thor the appellate court reversed a finding of direct contempt where the trial court, at a hearing held subsequent to the alleged contemptuous acts, considered testimony as to conduct and statements made by defendant at locations outside the courtroom previous to and days after his allegedly contemptuous conduct, which occurred in the courtroom. The appellate court found that since the trial court had considered matters which occurred outside his presence in adjudging and sentencing defendant for direct contempt, his conviction must be reversed.\nIn our view the circumstances in the case at hand fall within the rule of In re Estate of Kelly and cases cited above rather than Thor, relied upon by defendant. The trial court personally observed defendant raise a disturbance in the courtroom in fleeing custody. Other evidence indicated that defendant\u2019s flight did not terminate until he was forcibly apprehended. Defendant\u2019s apprehension occurred outside the courtroom but inside the courthouse. His conduct, as testified to, was related to, and contemporaneous with, the pattern of his conduct observed by the judge in the courtroom. Defendant does not argue that he was prejudiced by the nature of proceedings held in this case and indeed these proceedings do not posit the significant opportunity for prejudice due to \u201csurprise\u201d testimony which existed in Thor.\nOrder affirmed.\nGUILD, P. J., and SEIDENFELD, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE HALLETT"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ralph Ruebner and Joshua Sachs, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.",
      "Philip G. Reinhard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford (Phyllis Perko, of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KENT L. ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant.\nSecond District (1st Division)\nNo. 75-439\nOpinion filed July 27, 1976.\nRalph Ruebner and Joshua Sachs, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.\nPhilip G. Reinhard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford (Phyllis Perko, of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0370-01",
  "first_page_order": 398,
  "last_page_order": 400
}