Court Opinion

ID: 9705790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:21:13.407578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:15.509985
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING JUSTICE REINHARD delivered the opinion of the court: Upon our denial of the petition for rehearing filed by William K. Taylor, we find it necessary to briefly address one of the arguments raised therein. It is contended that the village of Mundelein must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt,” rather than by a clear preponderance of the evidence, that Taylor violated the ordinance in question. Not only did Taylor, as appellant, fail to provide in the record furnished us on appeal the ordinance in question and its penalty provision, but also he has not disputed the assumption in our opinion that the penalty provision did not provide for a period of incarceration. Instead, Taylor now raises, for the first time in the petition for rehearing, the argument that the standard of proof in this case must be beyond a reasonable doubt rather than by a clear preponderance of the evidence. A new contention cannot, for the first time, be urged in a petition for rehearing. (People v. Mallett (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 388, 397-98, 259 N.E.2d 241; 87 Ill. 2d R. 367.) Moreover, Taylor specifically acknowledged in the opening paragraph of the argument portion of his original brief that the village “was required to prove by a clear preponderance of the evidence that defendant delivered an ‘alcoholic liquor’ to ‘another person under the age of twenty-one years.’ ” Accordingly, we adhere to our original opinion. UNVERZAGT and SCHNAKE, JJ., concur.