185 Ill. App. 3d 340 - People v. Sharp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘(b) In fixing the amount of restitution to be paid in cash, the court shall allow credit for property returned in kind, for property damages ordered to be repaired by the defendant, and for property ordered to be restored by the defendant; and after granting such credit, the court shall assess the actual out-of-pocket expenses, losses, damages, and injuries suffered by the victim named in the charge and such other victims who may also have suffered out-of-pocket expenses, losses, damages, and injuries proximately caused by the same criminal conduct of the defendant, and insurance carriers who have indemnified the named victim or other victims for such out-of-pocket expenses, losses, damages, or injuries, provided that in no event shall restitution be ordered to be paid on account of pain and suffering.’ (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1005-5-6(b).)” (Strebin, 209 Ill. App. 3d at 1084 , 568 N.E.2d at 423-24 .)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 199 Ill. App. 3d 291 - People v. Powell · 223 Ill. App. 3d 400 - People v. Nasser

2. ““Greiman: Does the defendant have a right to have a jury determine how much the value of the items are for which there’s been a loss or alleged loss? Hawkinson: *** [T]hat is not presently the law, nor would it be under this Bill. However, as we have under the present law when there is a dispute as to restitution, the prosecutor, through testimony elicited from the vietims, still must prove that up in front of the Judge and the Judge makes the determination. That burden of proof and the procedure would not change under this Bill. Greiman: Well, so how do we deny the defendant his constitutional right to have a jury determine that? Don’t you believe that he has a constitutional right in a civil matter, essentially civil? Hawkinson: No. Under the present law, this determination is made only after a conviction or a finding of guilty for which, of course, he has the right to jury, but there is not [sic] right to determination of that, except in those instances where the value is determinative of whether it’s a misdemeanor or a felony. Greiman: How about the ... Aren’t we imposing on the state’s attorney an obligation to represent, essentially represent them — the complaining witness? Greiman: Prove value ... Isn’t that ... I mean, isn’t that what we do when we enlarge this? Hawkinson: I believe the state’s attorney already has that obligation to represent the victims and, under the present law, to obtain restitution in those cases where it’s possible.” 83d Ill. Gen. Assem., House”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 153 Ill. 2d 195 - People v. Lowe

3. ““The general purpose of the Code of Corrections is to rehabilitate the offender, if possible, and to restore him to useful citizenship. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 1001 — 1—2; People v. Mahle (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 279 , 312 N.E.2d 267 .) We are concerned that in the instant case, the probation system is not being used for rehabilitative purposes, but comes close to imposing civil liability. In interpreting California’s restitution statute, the California Supreme Court stated: ‘Disposing of civil liability cannot be a function of restitution in a criminal case. To begin with, the criminal justice system is essentially incapable of determining that a defendant is in fact civilly liable, and if so, to what extent. *** A party sued civilly has important due process rights, including appropriate pleadings, discovery, and a right to a trial by jury on the specific issues of liability and damages. The judge in the criminal trial should not be permitted to emasculate those rights by simply declaring his belief that the defendant owes a sum of money.’ People v. Richards (1976), 17 Cal. 3d 614, 620 , 552 P.2d 97, 101 , 131 Cal. Rptr. 537, 541 .” Sharp, 185 Ill. App. 3d at 347 , 541 N.E.2d at 693 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 223 Ill. App. 3d 400 - People v. Nasser