People v. Kraft, 1-94-2553

CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois
Citation277 Ill.App.3d 221,660 N.E.2d 114
Docket NumberNo. 1-94-2553,1-94-2553
Parties, 213 Ill.Dec. 857 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kathy KRAFT, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date27 December 1995

Page 114

660 N.E.2d 114
277 Ill.App.3d 221, 213 Ill.Dec. 857
The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Kathy KRAFT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1-94-2553.
Appellate Court of Illinois,
First District, Third Division.
Dec. 27, 1995.

Page 115

[213 Ill.Dec. 858] [277 Ill.App.3d 222] Howard E. Towles, Chicago, for Appellant.

Jack O'Malley, Renee Goldfarb, Timothy Felgenhauer, and Cathleen A. Dillon, Chicago, for Appellee.

Justice TULLY delivered the opinion of the court:

Following a bench trial, defendant, Kathy Kraft, was convicted of criminal trespass to real property in violation of section 21-3 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/121-3 (West 1992)) and sentenced to one year's probation for that crime. Jurisdiction is vested in this court pursuant to section 6 of article VI of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const.1970, art. VI, § 6) and Supreme Court Rule 603 (134 Ill.2d R. 603).

For the reasons which follow, we affirm.


Complainant, Isadore Ivan Ramos, resided at 2215 North Keating Avenue in Chicago with his wife, three children and mother-in-law. During the 10 years the Ramos family resided at that location, they suffered through a number of disturbing, racially-motivated incidents by defendant, who lived next door. As a result of one incident, defendant was ordered by the circuit court to stay off the Ramos property.

At 12:25 p.m. on January 9, 1993, complainant was repairing the window frame in

Page 116

[213 Ill.Dec. 859] his second-floor rear bedroom when he saw defendant cross the gangway and enter the alley where she struck complainant's garage with a baseball bat. The garage's alarm sounded as defendant fled back into her garage with the bat. When called as a defense witness pursuant to section 2-1102 of the Code of Civil Procedure (section 2-1102) (735 ILCS 5/2-1102 (West 1992)) [277 Ill.App.3d 223] complainant added that defendant damaged the overhead door. Complainant denied that he actually saw defendant swing the bat, but he believed she swung it from the right side of her body. When the police arrived within four minutes after the alarm sounded, complainant told them that defendant hit the door. The police went to defendant's house, but no one answered the door. A few minutes after the police arrived, complainant's neighbor, Deborah Narine, told him that defendant had run inside her home. Complainant's mother-in-law was in her bedroom at the time of the incident, but was not at the window.

Narine testified that she lived next door to complainant. At 12:30 p.m. on January 9, 1993, complainant's alarm sounded. The security company that monitored complainant's property called Narine concerning the alarm. Several minutes after the alarm sounded, Narine looked out her kitchen window and saw defendant run into her house from the garage. Complainant was on his back porch with two police officers, but their backs were turned towards defendant's yard.

Defendant testified that she lived at 2213 North Keating Avenue in Chicago. Her relationship with the Ramos family soured a few years after they moved into the neighborhood, but she never had problems with Narine. Defendant claimed that at the time of the incident she was with her mother and sister at a restaurant located in Chicago at the intersection of Montrose and Narragansett Avenues. Defendant then drove her sister home at 12:45 p.m. before proceeding to a shopping mall. Defendant denied that she entered complainant's property or struck his garage with a bat.


On appeal, defendant contends that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the trial court erroneously excluded relevant evidence regarding (a) an occurrence witness listed on police reports and (b) nonhearsay statements made by a neighbor to complainant at the time of the incident.


As a preliminary matter we note that defendant's brief contains neither a jurisdictional statement nor an appendix. Supreme Court Rule 612 makes Supreme Court Rules 341 and 342 (134 Ill.2d Rules 341, 342) applicable to criminal appeals. (See 134 Ill.2d R. 612.) Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(4) (134 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(4)) mandates what an appellant's brief must contain. With regard to jurisdictional statements the rule provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

"In a case appealed to the Appellate Court, a brief, but precise [277 Ill.App.3d 224] statement or explanation under the heading "Jurisdiction" of the basis for appeal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • People v. Atherton
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 16, 2010 offer of proof results in forfeiture of review of whether the evidence was excluded improperly); People v. Kraft, 277 Ill.App.3d 221, 225–26, 213 Ill.Dec. 857, 660 N.E.2d 114 (1995) (when trial court refuses to allow introduction of evidence, no appealable issue remains unless a formal o......
  • People v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 16, 2012
    ...1, 2005). We have decided to address the issues on the merits despite the violation of the rules. See People v. Kraft, 277 Ill.App.3d 221, 224, 213 Ill.Dec. 857, 660 N.E.2d 114 (1995).¶ 38 Standard of Review ¶ 39 We apply familiar standards to review the trial court's judgment. Because the ......
  • Murawski v. Reid
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • April 12, 2019
  • Steel Co. v. Morgan Marshall Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 6, 1996
    ... ... Audits took place at the same locations and he dealt with the same people ...         Morgan Marshall filed a motion for summary judgment, which the circuit court granted. It is from this judgment that plaintiffs ... Kraft (1995), 277 Ill.App. 221, 224, 213 Ill.Dec. 857, 660 N.E.2d 114.) With regard to violations of Rule 342(a) this court has held that: ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT