Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Crime Victim Compensation
Download PDF

In re Pearl Nails

31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 668 Illinois Court of Claims Filed April 5,1976 No. 75-CV-29
Disposition: (No. 75-CV-29-Claim dismissed.)
Cite as: In re Pearl Nails, 31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 668 (1976)
Crime Victim Compensation 31 dismissed 1970s In re Pearl Nails 31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 668 April 5,1976 (No. 75-CV-29-Claim dismissed.) /opinions/v31-p0715-1/

IN RE APPLICATION OF PEARL NAILS.

Case summary

Claim for compensation under the Crime Victims Compensation Act after the victim was shot during a poker game. The court dismissed the claim because the victim was engaged in illegal gambling, which substantially contributed to his death.

Claim type: Crime Victim Compensation

Statutes cited: Ill.Rev.Stat., 1973, Ch. 70, Sec. 70, 71, et seq.; Chapter 38, Section 28.1 of the Illinois Revised Statutes

Cases cited: In Re Application of Effie Hardy, 76-CV-2

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION ACT-wrongful act or substantial provoca-

IN RE APPLICATION OF PEARL NAILS.

Opinion filed April 5,1976.

ALDUS S. MITCHELL, Attorney for Claimant.

[*669] ~

669 j

WILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General of Illinois; PEGGY BASTAS,Assistant Attorney General.

CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION ACT-wrongful act or substantial provocation. Where victim was engaged in an illegal activity, to wit, gambling, at time of crime his claim is not compensable.

. PER CURIAM.

This claim arises out of a criminal offense that occurred on April 6, 1974, at 2046 Dewey, Evanston. Jeffrey Lewis, Garry Lewis and Lance Lewis, by Pearl Nails, their mother and next friend, seek compensation for loss of support pursuant to the provisions of the Crime Victims Compensation Act, (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1973, Ch. 70, Sec. 70, 71, et seq.) (hereafter referred to as the “Act”).

Evidence. was taken by the Court at a hearing conducted by Martin C. Ashman, a Commissioner of this Court.

The facts were that the deceased victim, Jesse E. Lewis, was playing poker with others at the home of Billie Bradford, 2046 Dewey, Evanston. The game was a weekly game for money. The stakes are unknown.

The evidence was that at this poker game the deceased victim “checked” on a hand to which the assailant, J.B. Boyd, objected as being against the rules of the game. The victim agreed after an argument that his action was against the rules and acceded to the demands of the assailant. Nevertheless, the assailant pulled a gun and shot the victim who was dead on arrival at Evanston Hospital.

The assailant was charged with and found guilty of murder and sentenced to the penitentiary.

This Court need not comment on the various issues raised by the parties as to the pecuniary losses sustained inasmuch as we find that this claim does not qualify for compensation under the Act.

[*670] Section 3(f) of the Act states that a person is entitled to compensation under the Act if: (0 the injury to or the death of the victim was not substantially attributable to his wrongful act or substantial provocation of his assailant; . . .

Gambling is a crime in the State of Illinois under the provisions of Chapter 38, Section 28.1 of the Illinois Revised Statutes.

This Court has already decided in the case ofIn Re Application of Effie Hardy, 76-CV-2, that where a victim was killed as a result of arguments during gambling, such a victim substantially contributed through his illegal acts to his own death.

This Court in the Hardy case said: Although this court can not ignore this brutal killing, neither can it ignore the evidence before it as to the circumstances leading to it. The Act under which this claim is made is intended to compensate for injuries or death to victims who were innocent of any contribution to their own injury or death. The victim in this case, placed himself in a situation, through his illegal activities, where further illegal activities would be the probable result. Surely, the victim did not expect to be murdered, but just as surely he did place himself in a situation where he can not be considered an innocent victim.

This reasoning is wholly applicable to the case before us.

The Claimant in the case before us argues that, because the victim acceded to the objections of the assailant, the victim did not provoke his assailant within the meaning of the Act. We can not agree. The victim in this case, by engaging in an illegal activity, substantially contributed to his own death for the purposes of the Act.

Therefore the Court finds that compensation is not authorized under the Act and the claim is hereby dismissed.

Official volume 31 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1976 – July 1, 1975–June 30, 1976; Fiscal Year 1977 – July 1, 1976 – June 30, 1977)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.