{ "id": 3261256, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWARD PAGE, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Page", "decision_date": "1979-07-13", "docket_number": "No. 78-156", "first_page": "796", "last_page": "801", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "73 Ill. App. 3d 796" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "192 Ill. App. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2889648 ], "year": 1915, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/192/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 N.E.2d 278", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "280" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Ill. App. 2d 281", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5227297 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "284" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/31/0281-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.E.2d 487", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 Ill. App. 3d 752", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2895988 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/45/0752-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 N.E.2d 750", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 Ill. App. 3d 934", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3420995 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/57/0934-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 S. Ct. 750", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 L. Ed. 2d 771", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "434 U.S. 1023", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6506361, 6506462 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/434/1023-01", "/us/434/1023-02" ] }, { "cite": "364 N.E.2d 50", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Ill. 2d 55", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5813107 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/67/0055-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 564, "char_count": 10330, "ocr_confidence": 0.879, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.838812167034896e-08, "percentile": 0.4584137916921025 }, "sha256": "9904e56110284b09b18f448c54b52e6d2e9e1beb8d58c40fd7e8f05198e2b076", "simhash": "1:b38f9aa8ff54d68b", "word_count": 1765 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:34.335432+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. EDWARD PAGE, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE KARNS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Edward Page, appeals from the order of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County finding him in direct criminal contempt of court. Defendant\u2019s sole contention is that he was not proven guilty of contempt of court beyond a reasonable doubt.\nThe facts established that on June 1, 1977, a *1,000 judgment was entered in small claims court against defendant and in favor of Paul Larry Grothoff. After defendant failed to satisfy the judgment, a citation to discover assets was filed requesting defendant to appear in court with a list of his personal property valued over *200. At the hearing on the citation held on August 17,1977, defendant testified as follows regarding his personal assets:\n\u201cQ. Do you own any items of personal property such as a stereo or radio units?\nA. Yeah, I\u2019ve got a color T.V. and stereo.\nQ. Is your color T.V. paid for?\nA. Yeah.\nQ. What kind is it?\nA. Well, I think it\u2019s an Admiral.\nQ. What size is it?\nA. Nineteen inch.\nQ. Is it portable?\nA. Uh-huh.\nQ. Is it paid for?\nA. Yes.\nQ. What type of stereo do you have?\nA. It\u2019s an Electrophonic I believe.\nQ. Is it paid for?\nA. Yes.\nQ. What\u2019s it worth?\nA. Three or four hundred dollars.\nQ. What\u2019s your color T.V. worth?\nA. Three hundred dollars. It\u2019s used.\u201d\nAfter defendant testified, GrothofFs counsel indicated that his client would accept monthly payments on the judgment, and added that seizure of the above property was not desired unless necessary. Defendant responded:\n\u201cTHE DEFENDANT: I have nothing to say other than I contest that. I myself do not owe the money.\nTHE COURT: Well, judgment has been entered against you.\nTHE DEFENDANT: I realize that.\nTHE COURT: And you do owe it.\nTHE DEFENDANT: I won\u2019t pay it.\nTHE COURT: What?\nTHE DEFENDANT: I will not pay it, absolutely not.\nTHE COURT: You will not pay it?\nTHE DEFENDANT: That\u2019s what I said.\nTHE COURT: Mr. Page, if you fail to pay this Order, you can be held in contempt of court and be put in jail.\nTHE DEFENDANT: I\u2019ve heard that.\u201d\nThe court then issued a writ of seizure for the color T.V. and stereo. When the property was not seized pursuant to the court\u2019s order, a second hearing took place on December 14, 1977. At the hearing, defendant claimed that no one representing Grothoff had attempted to seize the property in his presence and admitted that he had made no effort to pay the judgment. He further acknowledged his prior testimony that he owned the television set and the stereo. He also revealed that he had acquired a 1968 Buick for $721 and that his father-in-law, who financed the purchase, had a lien on the automobile. The court then ordered the stereo, television and automobile to be seized immediately.\nOn December 22,1977, Cheryl Page, defendant\u2019s wife since October 10, 1977, filed a petition to intervene seeking to set aside the order of seizure. At a hearing on December 29,1977, Ms. Page established that the television had been given to her by her parents as a birthday gift in 1972 and that she had purchased the stereo in 1977. She added that the title to the Buick, on which her father had a lien, was in both her name and defendant\u2019s. She considered the television set and stereo to be her property and stated that if anyone had testified to the contrary such testimony would have been false.\nAnother hearing on the petition to intervene was held on January 6, 1978, before the same judge who had presided at the proceedings of August 17 and December 14. Ms. Page again testified that the television set and stereo were her property and added that defendant had no property interest in either item. She then testified as follows:\n\u201cQ. Were you aware that in the past on two different occasions\nEdward A. Page has testified in this court that he owned the stereo and the television?\nA. No, I wasn\u2019t.\nQ. Did he tell you that?\nA. Yes, he did.\nQ. He told you that he testified that those things were his property?\nA. Yes, he did.\nQ. That wasn\u2019t true, was it?\nA. No, it wasn\u2019t.\u201d\nDefendant testified that the testimony of his wife was completely true. He admitted that his testimony at the prior hearings was false but added that he \u201cwasn\u2019t really trying to lie to the Court.\u201d He further testified that he believed the items belonged to his wife and himself because they lived together but conceded that he knew that legal ownership was held by Cheryl.\nThe court found the allegations of the petition to intervene to be true and ordered the return of the television set, stereo and Buick to the wife. The court also stated that defendant was \u201cvery likely\u201d in direct contempt of court on account of his testimony and set a date for a contempt hearing. At the ensuing hearing held on February 10, 1978, the court found defendant in direct contempt of court, sentenced him to two weeks\u2019 imprisonment and fined him *300. In its written order, the court found that defendant had made false statements knowing them to be untrue at the time they were made. It added that defendant interfered with the administration of justice by permitting \u201cthis court to seize property which were in fact not his\u201d and therefore held defendant in direct contempt of court.\n\u201cContempt\u201d has been generally defined as any act or conduct calculated to embarrass, hinder or obstruct the court in its administration of justice or otherwise undermine its authority. (People ex rel. Kunce v. Hogan, 67 Ill. 2d 55, 364 N.E.2d 50 (1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1023, 54 L. Ed. 2d 771, 98 S. Ct. 750 (1978); People v. Collins, 57 Ill. App. 3d 934, 373 N.E.2d 750 (1978).) A direct criminal contempt occurs when the contemptuous act either takes place in the very presence of the judge or is committed outside of his presence but within an integral part of the court. (People ex rel. Kunce v. Hogan; People v. Winchell, 45 Ill. App. 3d 752, 359 N.E.2d 487 (1977).) To sustain a conviction for direct criminal contempt on the basis of perjury the following requisites are needed:\n\u2018\u00ae \u00ae * it must appear beyond a reasonable doubt from the personal knowledge of the court, or by admissions from the lips of the defendant himself in open court, and in the presence of the court, and from no other source whatsoever, that (1) the representations so made were false and untrue when made; (2) that the defendant knew of their falsity when he made them; and (3) that he made them knowing their falsity and with a wilful and malevolent intention of assailing the dignity of the court, or of interfering with its procedure and the due administration of justice. . . .\u2019\u201d People v. Bialek, 31 Ill. App. 2d 281, 284, 175 N.E.2d 278, 280 (161), quoting from People v. Hille, 192 Ill. App. 139 (1915).\nDefendant concedes that he made false statements in open court; however, he maintains that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a finding of any \u201cwilful and malevolent\u201d intent. In support of his position, he argues that under the facts presented it was reasonable as \u201ca practical matter\u201d for him to assume that he owned the television set and stereo. Furthermore, he argues that his false statements consisted solely of responses to \u201cloaded\u201d questions posed by plaintiff\u2019s counsel. The State contends that a contemptuous state of mind may be inferred from proof of the surrounding circumstances and from the character and actions of the defendant (People ex rel. Kunce v. Hogan) and that the surrounding circumstances and actions of defendant in the present case indicate defendant\u2019s attempt to interfere with the court\u2019s administration of justice beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree.\nA careful review of the record reveals that defendant knew that his statements both at the August 17 and December 14 hearings were false at the time when made. He admitted at the January 6, 1978, hearing that he knew his wife had legal ownership of the stereo and television set at all times. He nevertheless argues on appeal that he was confused by the concept of legal ownership, was confused by counsel\u2019s questioning, and was therefore confused in his testimony. Defendant\u2019s argument is without merit. Counsel for plaintiff conducted a proper and straightforward inquiry into defendant\u2019s assets and did not attempt to mislead or confuse him at trial. It is also clear that a lay person, such as defendant, need not have any legal training to know generally which personal items are his and which items were purchased by and belong to another person. In the present case, the testimony established that Ms. Page received the television as a gift from her parents in 1972 and purchased the stereo with her own funds prior to the time she and defendant were married. Although there are at times complicated legal questions of ownership presented to a judicial body, this case clearly does not involve one of those situations. Defendant therefore cannot claim that he was confused by the concept of ownership when he was well aware that the items in question belonged to Ms. Page.\nFurthermore, the evidence overwhelmingly supported the trial court\u2019s findings that defendant\u2019s conduct was calculated to delay and hinder the judicial process. Defendant himself admitted that he would refuse to pay the judgment lawfully rendered against him. Considering this proclamation against his conduct at all of the hearings held in this case, we can only construe his actions as either attempting to mislead the court into ordering a seizure of property belonging to someone other than defendant or deceive the court into holding additional and costly hearings, thereby delaying satisfaction of the judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant wilfully and knowingly interfered with the administration of justice.\nFor the reasons stated, the order of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County finding defendant in contempt of court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nKUNCE and KASSERMAN, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE KARNS" } ], "attorneys": [ "John H. Reid and E. William Hutton, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.", "James E. Dull, State\u2019s Attorney, of Mt. Vernon (Raymond F. Buckley, Jr., and Stephn J. Maassen, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWARD PAGE, Defendant-Appellant.\nFifth District\nNo. 78-156\nOpinion filed July 13, 1979.\nJohn H. Reid and E. William Hutton, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.\nJames E. Dull, State\u2019s Attorney, of Mt. Vernon (Raymond F. Buckley, Jr., and Stephn J. Maassen, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0796-01", "first_page_order": 818, "last_page_order": 823 }