In re APPLICATION OF GARY C. FORD.
Case summary
Claimant sought compensation under the Crime Victims Compensation Act for injuries from a shooting. The court denied the claim because the claimant failed to fully cooperate with law enforcement in the apprehension and prosecution of the assailant, as required by the Act.
Statutes cited: Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 70, par. 71 et seq.; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 70, par. 6.1(c); Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 70, par. 6.1(d)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General (FAITH S. I
- SALSBURG, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for I
- Respondent. I
- CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION ACT-cooperation with authorities prerequisite to award. In order to be entitled to the grant of an award under the Crime Victims Compensation Act a claimant must show that the appropriate law enforcement officials were notified of the crime which is the basis of the claim, and that the claimant has cooperated fully with the officials in the apprehension and prosecution of the assailant. I
- SAME-shooting victim-no cooperation with police-claim denied. The victim of a shooting was denied an award for the injuries he sustained, since the evidence established that he knew the offender, but declined to ! cooperate fully with the law enforcement officials in apprehending and prosecuting the assailant.
This claim arises out of an incident that occurred on [*444] September 23, 1981. Gary C. Ford, Claimant, seeks compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Crime Victims Compensation Act, hereafter referred to as the Act. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 70, par. 71 etseq.
This Court has carefully considered the application for benefits submitted on July 27, 1982, on the form prescribed by the Attorney General, and an investigatory report of the Attorney General of Illinois. Based upon these documents and other evidence submitted to the Court, the Court finds:
1. That on September 23, 1981, the Claimant was shot by an offender who was known to him. The incident allegedly occurred on the street at 1733 East I 75th Street, Chicago, Illinois. The Claimant originally , reported to police that the incident had occurred within his automobile and that a struggle for the weapon took place after which the offender exited the vehicle. The
i
I
! Claimant later stated that the struggle for the weapon I continued on the street outside his automobile. A search of the Claimant’s automobile revealed no evidence of !
j blood or of bullet damage to the vehicle despite the fact I that three bullets struck and then exited the Claimant. The police were unable to find any evidence of a crime I occurring at the scene. The Claimant identified the i offender as an acquaintance whose address was I
I
unknown. During later questioning he identified another I
I
man as the offender and provided the police with the offender’s address. However, the Claimant refused to i prosecute this individual.
I,
2. That sections 6.l(c) and (d) of the Act state that I a person is entitled to compensation under the Act if the i appropriate law enforcement officials were notified of I the perpetration of the crime and the applicant has I
I
!
I
I
[*445] cooperated fully with law enforcement officials in the apprehension and prosecution of the assailant.
3. That it appears from the police report that the Claimant declined to cooperate fully with law enforcement officials in the apprehension of the assailant, in that he made conflicting statements to police investigating regarding the circumstances surrounding the incident and refused to prosecute the assailant whom he identified.
4. That by reason of the Claimant’s refusal to fully cooperate with law enforcement officials in the apprehension and prosecution of the assailant as required by the Act he is not eligible for compensation thereunder.
It is hereby ordered that this claim be, and is hereby denied.
ORDER ON DENIAL OF REHEARING
HOLDERMAN, J.
On February 14,1984, Claimant filed a petition for rehearing of the Court’s order of January 11, 1984, wherein the Court denied Claimant an award. Subsequent to the order denying award, the commissioner set a rehearing for November 13, 1984. Claimant was advised of the rehearing but failed to appear.
It appearing to the Court that Claimant has failed to cooperate in the procedures of this cause, the petition for rehearing is denied and the Court’s original order denying Claimant an award is hereby affirmed.