Court Opinion

ID: 9719840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:06:29.976562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:10.549936
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE GREEN, dissenting: The testimony of Detective Bell that defendant admitted taking about $60 from the exchange was not vague. The credibility of defendant’s denial that she made the admission and her denial that she took the money was impeached by her recent conviction of the offense for which she was on probation, a crime of dishonesty, and her self-interest in fabricating testimony to prevent revocation of her probation. Although she made no admission to others of taking the money, the trial judge saw and heard the witnesses and could have determined that more likely than not the police officer was accurate and truthful and that the defendant was not. The evidence that the defendant was short in her account was vague but had some probative value and tended to corroborate the extra-judicial admission attributed to her by Detective Bell. Our responsibility is not to determine if the probation violation was proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Our responsibility is to determine if the determination of the trial judge that the violation occurred is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In a civil case, a finding is “contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence” when “an opposite conclusion is ‘clearly apparent’.” (Roth v. Lissner Iron & Metal Co. (1967), 88 Ill. App. 2d 352, 353, 232 N.E.2d 534, 536.) By any definition of the phrase, I do not deem the trial court’s finding here to be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. I would affirm the revocation of probation and the conviction.