DAVID JENNINGS, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought compensation under the Crime Victims Compensation Act for injuries from a stabbing. The court denied the claim because the claimant violated an order of protection, and his conduct contributed to his injury.
Statutes cited: 740 ILCS 45/1 et seq.; 740 ILCS 45/10.1(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 ACT - claim denied -In action under the Crime Victims Compensation Act where Claimant was stabbed by an alleged offender who was known to him, the Court denied the claim because Claimant was in violation of the alleged offender s Order of Protection, in that he went to her home while it was still in effect, therefore, Claimants conduct contributed to his injury to such an extent as to warrant denial of his claim.
MITCHELL, J. This claim arises out of an incident that occurred on March 14, 2001.
The Claimant, David Jennings, seeks compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Crime Victims Compensation Act, hereafter referred to as the Act, 740 ILCS 45/1, et sec., (1998).
This Court has carefully considered the application for benefits [*672] 672 54 Ill. Ct. Cl. submitted on May 3, 2001, on the form prescribed by the Illinois Attorney General, and an investigator report of the Illinois Attorney General which substantiates matters set forth in the application. Based upon these documents and other evidence submitted to the Illinois Attorney General s Office, the Court finds: 1. That on March 14, 2001, the claimant was stabbed by an alleged offender who was known to him. The incident occurred at 2630 Lincoln Avenue, East St. Louis, Illinois. Police investigation revealed Claimant went to the alleged offender s home and became involved in an altercation with her. As a result, the alleged offender obtained a knife and stabbed the Claimant in the right hand. Further investigation conducted by the Illinois Attorney General s Office revealed that during this incident, the Claimant was in violation of the alleged offender s Order of Protection, in that he went to her home while the Order was still in effect. 2. That ⁄10.1 of the Act indicates factors used to determine entitlement to compensation. Specifically, ⁄10.1(d) of the Act states that an award shall be reduced or denied according to the extent to which the victim s acts or conduct provoked or contributed to his injury or death, or to the extent to which any prior criminal conviction or conduct of the victim may have directly or indirectly contributed to the injury or death of the victim. 3. That it appeals from the investigatory Report and the police report that the Claimant was in violation of the alleged offender s Order of Protection in that, he went to her home while it was still in effect 4. That the Claimant s conduct contributed to his injury to such an extent as to warrant that the Claimant be denied entitlement to compensation. 5. That this claim does not meet required conditions precedent for compensation under the Act.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this claim be and is hereby denied.