Court Opinion

ID: 9704981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:53:35.787584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:07.055771
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, specially concurring: I concur in the outcome of this court’s opinion but disagree with its observation that People v. Flannigan, 131 Ill. App. 2d 1059 (1971), was wrongly decided. In Flannigan, the court described the defendant’s conduct as follows: “Essentially, the evidence shows that defendant did not immediately step from his car, that he wanted to give his car keys to his girl friend, that he intended to argue with Sergeant Pen-dell over the charge and that he jerked his arm away from Pendell when Pendell tried to take him to the car.” Flannigan, 131 Ill. App. 2d at 1063. In the instant case, by contrast, the opinion reads: “Officer Limacher testified that defendant struggled against his efforts to escort her out of the store, that she tensed up and pulled her hand away from him during handcuffing, that she struggled against his efforts to escort her to the security office, and that she struggled and flailed about once inside the security office. Limacher’s testimony was somewhat corroborated by that of Officer Marquez, who testified that when he arrived, Limacher was on the floor in the security office trying to gain control over a struggling defendant.” 378 Ill. App. 3d at 962-63. The defendant in Flannigan never tried to break away; instead he told the officer: “Take your hands off. I’ll go.” Flannigan, 131 Ill. App. 2d at 1062. I believe the case was properly decided even in light of the current reasonable doubt standard.