{
  "id": 2976721,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STANLEY CRAIG, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Craig",
  "decision_date": "1977-03-14",
  "docket_number": "76-1056",
  "first_page": "1058",
  "last_page": "1060",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "46 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": "334 N.E.2d 123",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill. App. 3d 854",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2622837
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/30/0854-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 328,
    "char_count": 5007,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.906,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3654452441049652
    },
    "sha256": "0477d286cf8070ddd03d3ba82b2700fbfbd1960081cf6693f3de409409f34a44",
    "simhash": "1:98078b42c616b6a1",
    "word_count": 807
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:00:39.078190+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. STANLEY CRAIG, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE McGLOON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Stanley Craig, was charged with battery, and after a bench trial, was found guilty and fined HO plus $5 court costs. Defendant appeals, arguing that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.\nWe reverse.\nThe record on appeal discloses the following pertinent facts. On the evening of April 30, 1976, while employed as a hospital security guard, defendant observed a young female patient in the hospital hall raise a small camera to her face, preparing to take a picture. Craig walked over to the patient, and as he removed the camera from her hand, he said that cameras were not allowed in the hospital. He then handed the camera to the patient\u2019s mother, again explaining the hospital rule against cameras. The mother took the camera out of the hospital. Subsequently, the patient was released from the hospital and she signed a criminal complaint charging Craig with the offense of battery. The amended complaint alleged that defendant knowingly and without legal justification made an insulting and provoking contact with the complainant\u2019s hand. (111. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 12 \u2014 3(a).) The 17-year-old complaining witness testified, inter alia, that she had seen defendant in the hospital halls prior to the occurrence, but that she did not know at the time who was taking the camera out of her hand. She further testified that at the time, she was heavily medicated. The mother testified that the incident took place as her daughter was preparing to take an unannounced photograph of another patient, a friend of her daughter. The daughter had said that she bet the friend would probably jump or ask her to stop. At the conclusion of the State\u2019s case, defendant moved to dismiss the charge because the State failed to prove its case. The motion was denied. A hospital administrator testified for defendant that there was a policy of not allowing cameras in the hospital. Another hospital security guard testified, inter alia, that after defendant handed the camera to complainant\u2019s mother, that the mother directed obscenities toward defendant and the hospital.\nDefendant argued in the trial court and argues on appeal that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of battery. In particular, defendant contends that the evidence fails to support a conclusion that his actions were of an insulting or provoking nature.\nDefendant was charged with battery, in violation of section 12 \u2014 3(a) (2) of the Criminal Code:\n\u201cA person commits battery if he intentionally and knowingly without legal justification and by any means, 0 0 0 makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 12 \u2014 3(a)(2).)\nIntent is defined as follows:\n\u201cA person intends, or acts intentionally or with intent, to accomplish a result or engage in conduct described by the statute defining the offense, when his conscious objection or purpose is to accomplish that result or engage in that contact.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 4 \u2014 4.)\nThe issue in the instant case is whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant\u2019s conscious objective or purpose in taking the camera from complainant and handing it to complainant\u2019s mother was to accomplish an insulting or provoking physical contact. (People v. Aguirre (1975), 30 Ill. App. 3d 854, 334 N.E.2d 123.) We believe not.\nThe testimony of record leads to the conclusion that defendant\u2019s sole objective or purpose in taking the complainant\u2019s camera from her hand and immediately giving it to her mother was to enforce the hospital\u2019s rule against the use of cameras. There is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would tend to show that defendant\u2019s purpose was to provoke or insult the complainant, a patient in the hospital. From all indications, defendant announced his purpose contemporaneously with his action of reaching for the camera. After depositing the camera with the mother, once again explaining the hospital rule, defendant immediately left the area to attend to his other duties. This evidence demonstrates a lack of intent to provoke or insult the complainant. The slight touching was unavoidable in connection with the discharge of defendant\u2019s duty under the hospital regulation prohibiting the use of cameras within the hospital.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County convicting defendant of battery is reversed.\nJudgment reversed.\nGOLDBERG, P. J., and O\u2019CONNOR, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE McGLOON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. Michael Kelly and Stanley J. Davidson, both of Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann, Hoban & Fuller, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Laurence J. Bolon, Mary Ellen Dienes, and Paul E. Kelly, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STANLEY CRAIG, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (1st Division)\n76-1056\nOpinion filed March 14, 1977.\nE. Michael Kelly and Stanley J. Davidson, both of Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann, Hoban & Fuller, of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Laurence J. Bolon, Mary Ellen Dienes, and Paul E. Kelly, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "1058-01",
  "first_page_order": 1088,
  "last_page_order": 1090
}