Court Opinion

ID: 9860600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:26:57.829957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:27.902643
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SCHMIDT, specially concurring: I concur in the result, but not in the entire analysis. I believe that a reversal is warranted by what the majority describes as “the first problem.” I strongly disagree with the majority’s discussion of “the second problem.” The majority states, “We find nothing in this case to suggest that the defendant actually knew the card was fraudulent and, without such evidence, the trial court could not find the requisite intent to mislead the court.” 374 Ill. App. 3d at 439. Apparently, the majority would require a confession from defendant that he knew the card was fraudulent in order to find intent to mislead the court. I think most reasonable people would agree that it would be, at best, highly improbable for someone to have a fraudulent insurance card in his wallet without knowing it was fraudulent. Where do people get insurance cards? Answering my own rhetorical question, I suggest that it is either directly from our insurance agent or in an envelope mailed to us directly from our insurance carrier, along with a statement and/or a declarations page. The fact that the card is fraudulent can only lead to the rational inference that defendant did not get the card either directly from his insurance agent or mailed directly to him from his insurance carrier. Had defendant pulled a Molotov cocktail out of his coat, ignited a wick and thrown it at the judge, would the court find direct criminal contempt inappropriate because there was no evidence that defendant knew the bottle contained a flammable liquid? Of course he knew it was fraudulent, and of course he handed it to the court representing it to be a valid insurance card, satisfying the requirement that he intended to mislead the court. The only problem in this case is that the proof that the card was fraudulent came from outside the courtroom and, therefore, direct criminal contempt was not the proper charge. The defendant should have been charged with indirect criminal contempt as the majority correctly points out.