Court Opinion

ID: 9728356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:06:04.057186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:48.064239
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE TRAPP, dissenting: The majority opinion concludes that since the probation revocation is not criminal in nature, the provisions of section 5—2—4 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 1005—2—4) cannot properly be employed. That conclusion is stated too broadly, for it is recognized that in an alleged violation of probation the defendant is entitled to many rights and protections of a defendant in a criminal prosecution. It is apparent that the revocation procedure markedly affects personal rights and liberty. Here, the petition alleged that defendant detained the victim without legal authority in violation of section 10 — 3(a) of the Criminal Code of 1961. That statute requires the mental state of an act done “knowingly.” “Knowledge. A person knows, or acts knowingly or with knowledge of: (a) The nature or attendant circumstances of his conduct, described by the statute defining the offense, when he is consciously aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstances exist. Knowledge of a material fact includes awareness of the substantial probability that such fact exists. (b) The result of his conduct, described by the statute defining the offense, when he is consciously aware that such result is practically certain to be caused by his conduct.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 4—5. The trial court agreed that the prosecution had failed to rebut the “defense” of insanity and the majority opinion agrees that the evidence supports a finding of insanity. The trial court found that the “defense” was not available in a proceeding for revocation of probation, and again this court agrees. Upon the allegations of the petition, the trial court necessarily found that defendant was guilty of a criminal offense as alleged in the petition to revoke, but despite such a basis for revocation defendant was denied a defense that would be available to a defendant in an original prosecution of this offense. Again, upon the agreed circumstances, the defendant would be entitled to a finding of “not guilty by reason of insanity” and would therefore be examined and treated subject to the considerations provided in section 5 — 2 — 4(a) of the Unified Code of Corrections. The statutory structure of the latter section of the Code supplies a disposition which would be uniform throughout the venue of this court, and would avoid the ad hoc solutions produced by the varying facilities and programs available in the several circuits of the State. I suggest that a petition to revoke probation which alleges a commission of a criminal offense is presented in a different posture from that of a petition which alleges certain acts or conduct, other than an offense charged, indicating that rehabilitation has failed, or that the defendant represents a hazard to himself or to others. For such reasons I would reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for disposition under the last-cited section of the Unified Code of Corrections.