{
  "id": 3404456,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. WILLIAM ESPINOZA, Respondent-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Espinoza",
  "decision_date": "1977-10-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 77-699",
  "first_page": "36",
  "last_page": "38",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 3d 36"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill. 2d 544",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5812888
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/67/0544-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "338 N.E.2d 171",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 Ill. 2d 559",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2966794
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "568"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/61/0559-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "386 U.S. 738",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6182629
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/386/0738-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 322,
    "char_count": 5252,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.888,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.322791132728845e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6271199595034305
    },
    "sha256": "d99b19c8c0c05f1a64ced9caaac6be110aa6b2311c66fe1998f708d499beccfa",
    "simhash": "1:7a31b96b629c0c97",
    "word_count": 870
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:34.806209+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. WILLIAM ESPINOZA, Respondent-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DIERINGER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nA mental health petition was filed in the circuit court of Cook County, alleging William Espinoza (hereinafter \u201cthe respondent\u201d) to be in need of mental treatment. A hearing was held on February 14, 1977. The respondent was found to be in need of mental treatment and was committed to the Department of Mental Health. Notice of appeal was filed and the public defender was appointed to represent the respondent.\nOn July 26, 1977, the public defender filed a motion for leave to withdraw, supported by a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396, in which he states the issues which could possibly be raised on appeal are whether the respondent was proven by clear and convincing evidence to be in need of mental treatment and whether it was error to allow a doctor to base his opinion on the medical records compiled by others. After reviewing the record we agree these are the only conceivable arguments which could be raised on appeal. The public defender\u2019s brief concludes an appeal on these issues would be without merit.\nCopies of the motion and brief were mailed to the respondent on August 8, 1977. The respondent was informed he had until October 7, 1977, to file any points he might choose in support of his appeal and he has failed to answer.\nRespondent argued at the hearing he could not be proven dangerous to himself where the doctor\u2019s testimony regarding the respondent\u2019s suicide attempt was not based upon his own knowledge but upon a hospital record.\nAt the hearing on the mental health petition Dr. Kapoor testified respondent\u2019s record discloses a serious suicide attempt. The doctor testified, because of an overdose of tranquilizers, the respondent was taken to an emergency room of another hospital to have his stomach pumped. Upon cross-examination, the doctor testified he had no firsthand knowledge of this incident and he relied on medical records.\nIn People v. Ward (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 559, 338 N.E.2d 171, a doctor was allowed to give his opinion as to the sanity of the defendant at the time the crime was committed. This opinion of the doctor was, in part, predicated on the report of another doctor who did not appear at trial. The Illinois Supreme Court held it was not error to allow the doctor to base his opinion, in part, upon the medical records compiled by others. The court stated:\n\u201cIf such reports are of a type customarily utilized by the medical profession, then these reports may be used as factors by an expert in the determination of his opinion as to an accused\u2019s sanity even though the reports are not admitted into evidence.\u201d (Ward, 61 Ill. 2d 559, 568.)\nThe court went on to say since these types of reports are commonly used by doctors, they have a high degree of reliability.\nIn the instant case, the medical record used by Dr. Kapoor was just one aspect of his examination and diagnosis. In addition to this record of a suicidal attempt, the doctor also testified he examined the respondent four times. The respondent personally admitted he wished to harm himself and he wanted to commit suicide. This testimony, along with the medical record, is clear and convincing evidence the respondent was dangerous to himself.\nThe respondent also argued he was not proven by clear and convincing evidence to be in need of mental treatment.\nUndisputedly, the standard of proof required to establish a person is in need of mental treatment is clear and convincing evidence. In re Stephenson (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 544.\nHere, the doctor\u2019s testimony established the respondent was hallucinatory since he was hearing voices. The doctor testified the respondent suffered from the delusion he would run out of breathing air and die. The doctor also testified the respondent said he wished to hurt himself.\nThe doctor diagnosed the respondent as suffering from schizophrenia with suicidal tendencies. He testified the record disclosed a serious suicidal attempt only two weeks before his hospitalization.\nAt the hearing, the respondent maintained he was not in need of mental treatment. However, he did admit to hearing voices. Respondent also admitted telling the doctor he wanted to commit suicide. Finally, respondent denied ever being in another hospital, which contradicted his hospital record.\nIn light of the aforesaid testimony, and evidence in the record of a suicide attempt, the State has proven by clear and convincing evidence William Espinoza was a person in need of mental treatment.\nWe have reviewed the record and the brief submitted by counsel, and have concluded there are no arguably meritorious grounds for appeal.\nTherefore, the motion of the public defender of Cook County for leave to withdraw as attorney for respondent is allowed, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJOHNSON and ROMITI, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DIERINGER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Judith Stewart, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Rernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. WILLIAM ESPINOZA, Respondent-Appellant.\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 77-699\nOpinion filed October 27, 1977.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Judith Stewart, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nRernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0036-01",
  "first_page_order": 58,
  "last_page_order": 60
}