In re APPLICATION OF ROSIAFORT
Case summary
Claimant sought compensation under the Crime Victims Compensation Act for the death of her nephew, who was shot while in possession of 18 packets of illegal narcotics. The court denied the claim, finding that the victim's conduct contributed to his death under section 10.1(d) of the Act.
Statutes cited: Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 70, par. 71 et seq.; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 70, par. 80.1(d)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION Am- conduct of uictim may preclude recovery. The Crime Victims Compensation Act provides that an award under the Act is to be reduced according to the extent to which the victim may have directly or indirectly contributed to the injury or death of the victim.
- SAME-victim fatally shot- narcotics found on body- conduct contributed to death-claim denied. The Court of Claims denied a claim arising from the fatal shooting of the Claimant’s nephew based on uncontradicted information that the shooting occurred in an area known for narcotics trafficking and that packets of narcotics were discovered on the deceased’s body, notwithstanding the Claimant’s contention that the deceased was not involved in drug trafficking and that the narcotics were planted by the assailant, since witnesses interviewed by the police indicated the deceased’s conduct contributed to his death, and the Claimant failed to present any contrary evidence.
This cause coming to be heard upon the report of the Commissioner, after hearing before said Commissioner and this Court being fully advised in the premises.
This claim arises out of an incident that occurred on December 4, 1988. Rosia Fort, aunt of the deceased victim, seeks compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Crime Victims Compensation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 70, par. 71 et seq.). This matter is before the Court on a rehearing after Claimant’s claim was denied.
The aforesaid order denying the claim was based upon information contained in the investigatory report of the Attorney General’s office and the police report, which disclosed that the victim had 18 packets of illegal narcotics in his possession at the time of the shooting, which were found on his body. The police had interviewed tenants in the building at 5041 South Federal Street, in Chicago, where the shooting occurred and no one could contribute any information as to the cause of the shooting. However, the aforesaid building and the surrounding area appear to be continuously involved in narcotics trafficking and this Court determined that the victim’s conduct contributed to his death. No other conclusion may be reached under the circumstances and the information contained in the police report.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, possession of 18 packets of narcotics found on the person of the victim, and the reputation of the building as to previous [*394] similar incidents, all of which strongly point to narcotics activities in the area and victim’s involvement in same, this Court denied the claim, relying on the provisions of section lO.l(d) of the Act, which provides: “an award shall be reduced according to the extent to which conduct of the victim may have directly or indirectly contributed to the injury or death of the victim.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 70, par. 80.l(d).
The Claimant denies that the decedent was involved in drug trafficking and contends that the 18 packets of narcotics were planted on his person by the unknown assailant, which contentions are entirely unsubstantiated. The Claimant was advised of statements of witnesses who were interviewed by the police and the information disclosed by them at the time of the shooting, indicating that the conduct of the victim contributed to his death. However, the identity of said witnesses interviewed by the police was not disclosed to Claimant, but Claimant was advised and furnished with a subpoena form which she could file with the police department for production of their files on the incident.
At this hearing, Claimant was granted the opportunity to furnish witnesses which would have any knowledge of the incident involved and possibly offer any evidence contrary to’the findings hereinabove described and as of that date, Claimant cannot furnish any such evidence.
Wherefore, having been offered no evidence by Claimant contrary to the record herein, which supports the conclusion that the victim’s conduct contributed to his death, as previously determined by this Court, this claim is denied.