{
  "id": 3313057,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLES STADE, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Stade",
  "decision_date": "1978-12-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 77-1948",
  "first_page": "118",
  "last_page": "121",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 3d 118"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "281 N.E.2d 771",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Ill. App. 3d 622",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2910241
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/4/0622-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.E.2d 41",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Ill. App. 3d 661",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2529737
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/5/0661-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "379 N.E.2d 665",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. App. 3d 106",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3339158
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/63/0106-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "368 N.E.2d 882",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Ill. 2d 149",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5809665
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/68/0149-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 N.E.2d 279",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 Ill. App. 2d 815",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2825320
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/130/0815-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 N.E.2d 733",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 296",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5428466
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/63/0296-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 N.E.2d 652",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ill. App. 3d 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2782667,
        2781623
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/26/0182-01",
        "/ill-app-3d/26/0182-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 N.E.2d 288",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill. 2d 51",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2933119
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/54/0051-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 N.E.2d 153",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill. App. 3d 825",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2487544
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/41/0825-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 463,
    "char_count": 6759,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.893,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.09307801342858213
    },
    "sha256": "4dc875fb585e9431f475783c80684b94fb8ab8509f4678d073dbcf6aa349c4f8",
    "simhash": "1:0ec9beda77fccfd3",
    "word_count": 1162
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:17:27.014484+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. CHARLES STADE, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE LORENZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a bench trial, defendant was convicted of battery (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 12 \u2014 3) and sentenced to one year probation on condition he serve the first 90 days in the House of Correction. On appeal defendant contends that: (1) he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because he reasonably believed he was being attacked, and (2) the sentence was excessive since defendant was 17 years old, employed as a carpenter and had no criminal history.\nThe following pertinent evidence was adduced at trial.\nFor the State\nJames Cichowski\nHe was 18 years old on October 1, 1977. As he drove into a park in Chicago, he was forced to slow down because defendant and several other youths were standing out in the middle of the road. When he stopped, the youths approached his car and defendant accused him of kicking his sister\u2019s car at \u201cSuper Dog,\u201d a restaurant. Although he denied this, defendant kept repeating the accusation. Since the youths were \u201ccreeping in\u201d to his car, he \u201ctook off.\u201d Several of the youths including defendant, pursued him in another vehicle into a dead-end street where defendant rammed the rear of his automobile as it came to a stop. Defendant walked over to the car, punched him twice in the nose, grabbed his hair and pulled him out of the car. Defendant then held his head down and kept kicking and thrashing him in the face. As he was \u201cblackening out,\u201d he heard someone say \u201cQuit kicking him,\u201d and when he looked up neighbors were getting defendant off him. He took down defendant\u2019s license plate number as defendant drove off. He went to a hospital where a doctor took X rays which indicated a broken nose. He left the hospital that evening and another doctor operated on him subsequently. On cross-examination, Cichowski denied that he kicked the car of defendant\u2019s sister, that he got out of his car when it came to a stop, that he approached defendant with his fists raised or that he took a swing at defendant.\nMargaret Cichowski\nShe is the mother of James Cichowski. At about 11:30 p.m. on October 1, 1977 her son, James, came home with his face covered with blood, abrasions over his right eye and bruises on his arm. He was visibly shaken and stated that somebody had beaten him up. He asked to be taken to the hospital.\nFor the Defendant\nCharles Stade, on his own behalf\nWhen he asked Cichowski why he kicked his sister\u2019s car, Cichowski replied with a vulgar remark and drove off. Defendant \u201cgot a little mad\u201d and chased Cichowski around the park until he caught up with him in a dead-end street. Doug and Jim MacDonald were present in his car. Cichowski then got out of the car and swung at him, but missed. He then \u201cprotected himself,\u201d and hit and kicked Cichowski causing him to fall. Defendant testified he went after Cichowski not to \u201cbeat him up,\u201d but to find out his name.\nDoug MacDonald\nHe testified that he was in defendant\u2019s car and that it was Cichowski who swung first. He said that defendant hit Cichowski and kicked him a few times while he was on the ground or getting up.\nOpinion\nDefendant first contends he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because he reasonably believed that he was being attacked and was not required to wait until a blow was struck. Defendant cites People v. Lenzi (1976), 41 Ill. App. 3d 825, 355 N.E.2d 153, in which it was observed that in order to establish self-defense, the accused must show that unlawful force was threatened against him, that he was not the aggressor, that he believed the danger of harm was imminent, that force was necessary to avert the danger and that the amount of force used was necessary to avert the danger and that the amount of force used was necessary. Determination of the credibility of the witnesses and of the weight to be given their testimony was for the trier of fact to determine. (See also People v. Reese (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 51, 294 N.E.2d 288; People v. Nance (1975), 26 Ill. App. 3d 182, 324 N.E.2d 652.) At the conclusion of the closing arguments, the trial court stated it believed the testimony of the victim. Defendant admitted hitting the victim but claimed self-defense. The victim\u2019s testimony, which the trial court believed, clearly established that defendant was the aggressor. The record does not leave a reasonable doubt of defendant\u2019s guilt. See People v. Akis (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 296, 347 N.E.2d 733.\nDefendant next contends that the sentence of 90 days incarceration as a condition of probation was an abuse of discretion since he was only 17 years old, living with his parents, and employed as a carpenter, with no prior criminal history. He relies on People v. Krebel (1970), 130 Ill. App. 2d 815, 264 N.E.2d 279, and People v. Nance. The cases cited by defendant are distinguishable since in this case defendant was clearly the aggressor, his actions were seemingly more contemplated and his attack resulted in serious injury. In making its finding, the court observed that defendant was the aggressor from the very beginning. The court further noted that there was a notable difference in size between the larger defendant and the victim. The court observed that there was a pursuit and stated that it felt that defendant\u2019s conduct under the \u201ccircumstances about which there has been no substantial dispute is intolerable.\u201d The court said it would consider work release if defendant\u2019s employment could be verified, and the assistant public defender said he would prepare the papers for work release, but the record does not reveal if there were further proceedings in this regard.\nA reviewing court will not alter a sentence absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court. (People v. Perruquet (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 149, 368 N.E.2d 882.) This court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court merely because it may have imposed a different sentence. (People v. Jovicevic (1978), 63 Ill. App. 3d 106, 379 N.E.2d 665.) Despite defendant\u2019s youth and his lack of any criminal record, we cannot say that the sentence imposed is excessive given the aggravated circumstances of the offense. Compare People v. Jennings (1972), 5 Ill. App. 3d 661, 284 N.E.2d 41; People v. Brady (1972), 4 Ill. App. 3d 622, 281 N.E.2d 771.\nFor the reasons stated above, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMEJDA and WILSON, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE LORENZ"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William J. Harte, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Lee T. Hettinger, Joseph P. Quirk, and John J. Moran, Jr., Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLES STADE, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 77-1948\nOpinion filed December 1, 1978.\nWilliam J. Harte, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Lee T. Hettinger, Joseph P. Quirk, and John J. Moran, Jr., Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0118-01",
  "first_page_order": 140,
  "last_page_order": 143
}