author: JUSTICE CHAPMAN

text:
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELMER ECKERT, Defendant-Appellant.
    Fifth District
    No. 5—87—0371
    Opinion filed March 2, 1990.

      Daniel M. Kirwan and Michelle A. Zalisko, both of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.
    John Baricevic, State’s Attorney, of Belleville (Kenneth R. Boyle and Stephen E. Norris, both of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, and Anthony J. Peraica, of counsel), for the People.
   JUSTICE CHAPMAN

delivered the opinion of the court;

After trial before a jury in the criminal court of St. Clair County, Elmer Eckert was found guilty of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and sentenced to serve 14 years’ imprisonment concurrently on each count.

The victim in this case was defendant’s 13-year-old daughter. The victim testified at trial that the defendant first sexually assaulted her when she was in the fourth or fifth grade. She did not report this incident to her mother because her father warned her not to, and because she feared her mother would not believe her. It wasn’t until the summer of 1985 that she told her mother that the defendant was abusing her. The child testified that in the summer of 1985 the defendant assaulted her twice in their home. The first incident involved the defendant putting his penis in the victim’s mouth, feeling her breasts and putting his finger in the child’s vagina. The second assault occurred when the defendant stuck his penis in the victim’s mouth, moving it back and forth.

Defense counsel on cross-examination of the witness asked questions to elicit whether the child believed her father was too much a disciplinarian, that he drank too much and fought with her mother to the point that the child felt life would be more peaceful had her father not been there. The State objected to such questions, and the following discourse ensued:

“Q. Okay. Now, did your father also in the summer of ’85, did your father also accuse you and your brother of taking some money from him?
A. Yes.
Q. He accused you of taking approximately, what, a hundred dollars worth of change? If I’m wrong, just tell me I’m wrong.
A. Huh-uh.
Q. What did he accuse you of about the money?
A. Just — .
MS. FRANKE: Your Honor, I’m going to object again, number one, it’s beyond the scope of direct examination and it’s irrelevant.
THE COURT: Beyond the scope of direct examination.
MR. STORMENT: May I approach the bench? May we—
THE COURT: (indicates negatively)
MR. STORMENT: I can’t approach the bench?
THE COURT: Come on, Paul, I’ve tried cases too, ask the girl the questions.
Q. (by Mr. Storment) During this course of the summer of ’85, did he also, when he got mad, did he also say there wasn’t going to be any Christmas?
A. I can’t remember.
Q. You can’t remember that? Did your mother say — did your mother indicate that she was going to buy you bicycles for Christmas?
A. Yes.
Q. And did he say that you weren’t going to get any bicycles for Christmas?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in the summer of ’85, did you think in your mind-now, again, we need to know, we need for you to tell us the truth, and I need to ask you these questions. In the summer of ’85, did you feel like that life would be more peaceful if your father wasn’t there?
MS. FRANKE: I object to that, Your Honor.
MR. STORMENT: This is — Your Honor.
THE COURT: Objection will be sustained.
MR. STORMENT: I’ll have to make an offer of proof. Can we approach the bench for an offer of proof?
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. STORMENT: Your Honor, I’d like to make an offer of proof. I need to make an offer of proof. I’m trying to defend a person whose [sic] accused of a serious crime. I have to make an offer of proof at this time. If you are sustaining the objection, I need to make an offer of proof.
THE COURT: Paul, the direct examination took about thirty minutes, you’ve taken an hour so far. Sit down. Go back to the cross examination properly.
MR. STORMENT: May I please make an offer of proof?
THE COURT: No, you can’t approach the bench. I don’t want you up here.
MR. STORMENT: Can I make an offer of proof?
THE COURT: Turned off my hearing aid, can’t hear a word you are saying.
MR. STORMENT: Then I’d like to ask the question again. Do you think life would have been more peaceful had your father not been present in the home?
MS. FRANKE: I object, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Why?
MS. FRANKE: He asked the same question that has previously been sustained.
MR. STORMENT: This is my defense to the case.
THE COURT: It’s very easy to cross examine her. She has testified to certain things. You have a right to ask her about those things. You don’t have the right to go back into the whole life span of the child. Get to the pertinent points.
MR. STORMENT: I merely asked her one question. Well, can I ask her — did you want your father to leave the home?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Is life more peaceful now that your father is not there?
MS. FRANKE: I object to that question, Your Honor.
MR. STORMENT: This is my entire defense, Your Honor.
THE COURT: To what? You object to what?
MS. FRANKE: The question he asked, whether or not life is more peaceful in the home now without her father.
THE COURT: What does that have to do with the charge?
MS. FRANKE: That’s my objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. It will be sustained.
MR. STORMENT: Your Honor, I think I have to protect the record and make an offer of proof. I think it’s a matter of right for this defendant to make an offer of proof in this case.
THE COURT: Paul, I’m deaf and getting deafer.”

Defense counsel continued with his cross-examination, after which the victim’s 12-year-old brother took the stand. His testimony corroborated the incidents which his sister reported as having occurred in 1985, in that both times he witnessed his father sexually assaulting his sister.

The children’s mother, Judy Eckert, testified as to what her children reported to her regarding their father’s conduct. We will not go into detail herein as to her testimony as it is of little significance to the issues in this appeal.

Conrad Williams, the child abuse investigator for the Department of Children and Family Services, testified as to the procedures and findings of his investigation in this case. During cross-examination defense counsel asked whether many allegations of child sexual abuse are made by mothers estranged from their husbands and whether many of the cases the witness investigates are totally unfounded. The court sustained the State’s objection to this line of questioning, and this exchange took place between defense counsel and the court:

“Q. And are a lot of — are a lot of mothers that are enstrained from — estranged from their husbands, are they making these?
MS. FRANKE: Again I object to this being irrelevant.
THE COURT: Objection will be sustained.
Q. Are a lot of the calls that you investigate, do you determine that they are totally unfounded?
MS. FRANKE: Again that is irrelevant to this case.
MR. STORMENT: Your Honor, how am I-[?]
THE COURT: Wait a minute, we had direct examination, your cross examination is bound by the boundaries of the direct examination. Now, follow it along that way and we will get along all right, otherwise we will be here all day. We won’t accomplish anything, and I’ll go to sleep. Ask the question the way you should.
MR. STORMENT: Well, Your Honor, I’m cross examining the witness on a serious felony case.
THE COURT: Don’t make a speech to me, I can’t hear you.
MR. STORMENT: Why — very well then. Are many of the investigations that you find in the Cahokia area unfounded?
MS. FRANKE: Again, I object, it’s beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Let him answer.
Q. (by Mr. Storment) Is that correct, sir?
A. Some are unfounded.
THE COURT: All right. That’s an answer enough.
Q. Are many reports made by estranged wives against husbands unfounded?
MS. FRANKE: Again, Your Honor — .
THE COURT: I’ll sustain that objection.
MR. STORMENT: Well, Your Honor, will you ask the witness to remain?
THE COURT: You are shooting goose shot hoping to hit something. No.
MR. STORMENT: I’m trying to defend my client.
THE COURT: I know what you are trying to do. You are trying to louse up the case, too. Get on with the case.
MR. STORMENT: May I make an offer of proof on that?
THE COURT: You can make anything you want, I can’t hear you.
MR. STORMENT: Then I would approach — do I approach the Court Reporter to make my offer of proof?
THE COURT: If she wants to hear you. I’m going to turn my hearing aid off.
MS. FRANKE: I would ask that any offer of proof be taken outside the scope of the hearing — .
THE COURT: Debbie, go in there, sit in the hallway, take it, come back. Offer of proof is not for the jury to hear.
MR. STORMENT: I think I should ask-.
THE COURT: An offer of proof you tell what the witness will state if you ask him the question. That’s what an offer of proof is. Go ask it.”

At that time counsel made his offer of proof outside the jury’s and the trial judge’s presence.

The State’s final witness was Terrence McFarland, a police officer with Cahokia Village in St. Clair County. Officer McFarland testified that upon his request the defendant came down to the police station for questioning. The defendant waived his Miranda rights and freely gave a signed, written statement wherein he admitted that he engaged in oral sex with his daughter on two occasions. The defendant took the stand in his own behalf and denied the veracity of the written statement. He explained that although he admittedly made the statement, he did so only because he was tired of the aggravation and the questions, and he wanted to go home. Mr. Eckert testified that there were a lot of lies in the statement which was taken by Officer McFarland. He stated that he made the statement after promises had been made to him by the officer that he would not seek prosecution of the case if the defendant consented to making the statement.

At the conclusion of the evidence, but in the presence of the jury, the trial court and defense counsel had the following exchange:

“THE COURT: That will take it up to five o’clock. I have no intention of sitting here and keeping the jury so they don’t go out to consider a case until after five o’clock. This is Friday, they wouldn’t be thinking about the case, thinking about home and their children. We will recess this case until 9:30 Tuesday morning.
MR. STORMENT: Your Honor, I am scheduled to go to trial in Williamson County, have been, so — .
THE COURT: Guess what? You won’t go.
MR. STORMENT: That’s the nicest words I’ve heard. You’ll call the Judge down there and inform him?
THE COURT: Tell that Judge anything you want. Tell him I don’t care about him.
MR. STORMENT: But I don’t want to be in jail. You won’t be in jail.
THE COURT: I won’t be.
MR. STORMENT: You’ll square it with him?
THE COURT: Right.
MR. STORMENT: Thank you.
THE COURT: Look at poor Paul, he’ll be in jail.
MR. STORMENT: I’ll send my closing remarks from the jail.”

Defendant’s first contention on appeal is that he was denied a fair trial where the trial judge repeatedly expressed hostility toward defense counsel and erroneously denied defense counsel the opportunity to present his case effectively. In all criminal prosecutions the accused is entitled to a fair and impartial trial by jury. (People v. Marino (1953), 414 Ill. 445, 450, 111 N.E.2d 534, 537; People v. Kelley (1983), 113 Ill. App. 3d 761, 767, 447 N.E.2d 973, 977.) The right of a defendant to an unbiased, open-minded trier of fact is so fundamental to our system of jurisprudence that it should not require either citation or explanation. It is rooted in the constitutional.guaranty of due process of law and entitles a defendant to a fair and impartial trial before a court which proceeds, not arbitrarily or capriciously, but upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. (People v. McDaniels (1986), 144 Ill. App. 3d 459, 462, 494 N.E.2d 1275, 1277-78.) Jurors are ever conscious of the trial judge’s attitude. The judge’s influence upon them is of great weight; thus, his slightest remark or intimation is received with deference and may prove controlling. In a criminal trial, a hostile attitude toward an accused, or his witnesses is very apt to influence the jury in arriving at its verdict. (People v. Marino, 414 Ill. 445, 451, 111 N.E.2d 534, 537.) The trial judge must exercise a high degree of care to avoid influencing the jurors in any way, to remain impartial, and to not display prejudice or favor toward any party. People v. Sprinkle (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 398, 401, 189 N.E.2d 295, 298.

We do not believe this to be a case of harmless error. (See People v. Merz (1984), 122 Ill. App. 3d 972, 461 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Heidorn (1983), 114 Ill. App. 3d 933, 449 N.E.2d 568.) The trial judge’s remarks not only conveyed an impression to the jury that he felt defense counsel was not doing his job properly, but also that the defense was wasting the court’s time.

The Code of Judicial Conduct prescribes that a judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors and witnesses, lawyers and others with whom he deals in his official capacity. (107 Ill. 2d R. 63A(3).) Likewise, the A.B.A. Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standard 6 — 3.4, provides that “when it becomes necessary during the trial for the judge to comment upon the conduct of witnesses, spectators, counsel or others, or upon the testimony, the judge should do so in a firm, dignified, and restrained manner, avoiding repartee, limiting comments and rulings to what is reasonably required for the underlying progress of the trial, and refraining from unnecessary disparagement of persons or issues.” The record in the instant case, considered in its entirety, shows that the trial judge’s conduct in the presence of the jury denied defendant a fair and impartial trial.

Coupled with the judge’s improper comments, improper restrictions were placed upon defense counsel’s ability to cross-examine both the victim and the investigator in the case. The prosecution maintains that a trial court has substantial discretion to determine the manner and scope of cross-examination, and in this case there is no showing of a clear abuse of that discretion, resulting in manifest prejudice, to warrant a reversal. We believe the prosecution’s position undermines the import of the sixth amendment.

The sixth amendment provides in pertinent part:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right *** to be confronted with the witnesses against him ***.” (U.S. Const., amend. VI.)

Under the sixth and fourteenth amendments this right has been interpreted as a right to cross-examine a witness as to the witness’ biases, interests, or motives to testify. (People v. Pressley, (1987), 160 Ill. App. 3d 858, 862, 513 N.E.2d 921, 924.) The trial judge’s conduct effectively prevented defense counsel from cross-examining the complainant and the investigator, and in an antagonistic manner tried to prevent him from making an offer of proof to preserve the record. This conduct denied defendant his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.

It is a well-settled rule of law that it is error for the trial court to refuse to permit counsel to make an offer of proof. (In re Estate of Undziakiewicz (1964), 54 Ill. App. 2d 382, 385, 203 N.E.2d 434, 436.) In the instant case, the trial judge acted improperly in refusing to allow counsel the opportunity to make his offer of proof. Although counsel did later make his offer of proof, it was only after disparaging remarks to defense counsel were made in the presence of the jury by the trial judge. In addition, defense counsel made his offer of proof without the benefit of having the trial judge present. The court’s insistence that it would not listen to any offer of proof made by the defense effectively prevented defense counsel from showing the trial judge the relevance of certain evidence so that the judge could make an informed decision as to admissibility. (People v. Pressley (1987), 160 Ill. App. 3d 858, 864-65, 513 N.E.2d 921, 926.) The purpose of an offer of proof is to indicate to the trial court, opposing counsel and a reviewing court the substance of the evidence expected to be offered. (Daehler v. Oggoian (1979), 72 Ill. App. 3d 360, 369, 390 N.E.2d 417, 424.) “ ‘Just as the objection is the key to saving for review any error in admitting evidence, the offer of proof is the key to saving error in excluding evidence.’ ” (Miller v. Chicago Transit Authority (1966), 78 Ill. App. 2d 375, 383, 223 N.E.2d 323, 327, quoting Professor Cleary in his Handbook of Illinois Evidence, §7.7, now E. Cleary & M. Graham, Handbook of Illinois Evidence §103.7, at 17 (4th ed. 1984).) The judge’s conduct herein was impermissible.

Some of the instances of misconduct by the court, which we have noted, may not have been enough in isolation to rise to the level of reversible error. However, taken together the remarks had the cumulative effect of depriving defendant of a fair trial. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

In light of the foregoing determination, we need not address the issue raised by defendant that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing defendant to 14 years’ imprisonment.

Reversed and remanded.

RARICK and GOLDENHERSH, JJ., concur.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: JUSTICE LINN

license: Public Domain

text:
    GARY KADZIELAWSKI et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. BOARD OF FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE VILLAGE OF SKOKIE, Defendants-Appellees and Cross-Appellants.
    First District (4th Division)
    No. 1—88—2939
    Opinion filed February 15, 1990.

      Joel A. D’Alb'a and Asher, Gittler & Greenfield, Ltd., both of Chicago, for appellants.
    Di Leonardi & Broihier, Ltd., of Des Plaines (John C. Broihier and Kathryn E. Korn, of counsel), for appellees.
   JUSTICE LINN

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs, Gary Kadzielawski and Henry Sajovic, were suspended from the fire service of the Village of Skokie and fined $8,500 and $1,500, respectively. On appeal, the circuit court of Cook County upheld the suspensions but reduced the fines to $500 and $200. In the appeal from that decision, plaintiffs claim that they were improperly disciplined for speaking on public issues; other fire fighters similarly situated were not similarly disciplined; and the board had no authority to impose fines.

We affirm.

Background

Plaintiffs have been fire fighters with the Village of Skokie fire department (the Department) since August 31, 1981. They were acting lieutenants at the time of the disciplinary proceedings. As part of their duties, they assisted the Department’s emergency medical service paramedics. In the early 1980’s, in response to a departmental order, plaintiffs had begun taking paramedic training courses at area hospitals. Kadzielawski was dropped from the program at Ingalls Hospital for failing to meet the academic requirements. Sajovic completed training at St. Francis but did not obtain State certification. As a result, neither received a wage increase for one year.

In September 1986 the Department’s emergency medical services committee determined that the employees who were not yet State-certified paramedics should be given training at area hospitals and recommended this action to Chief Quillen, who agreed. In February 1987, the chief ordered plaintiffs to report to Christ Hospital and Medical Center in Oak Lawn, Illinois, take an entrance examination, and attend training sessions in order to obtain State certification.

The program at Christ Hospital is administered by Patricia Perlman, R.N., and her assistant, Janet Tracy. On February 17, 1987, plaintiffs sat for the written examination. Kadzielawski wore a T-shirt adorned with the legend: “Compassion Sucks.” After they finished the examination, they spoke with Tracy at her desk for a short time. Perlman was present, in the back of the office. The occurrence and conversations that took place on that date became the basis for the charges filed against plaintiffs.

Perlman recognized Kadzielawski from his previous training class at Ingalls Hospital. She recalled that he had commented then, during an interview with her, that the emergency medical services program would be the “ruination” of the fire department. Kadzielawski had missed some classes and failed an examination. He told Perlman that Skokie Fire Chief Quillen was “stupid” to expect him to attend paramedic school.

Both plaintiffs stated their strong preference not to attend the training program. Kadzielawski acknowledged that there were pay advantages, in both overtime and incentive pay, for him to obtain the certification and indicated that he would obey the Department order.

Tracy, the assistant, told the plaintiffs that she would cancel the class after they told her of vacation and travel scheduling problems. According to her testimony, however, she was only joking with the men. They testified that they declined her offer to cancel the class and thus excuse them from taking it.

At some point while plaintiffs were at the hospital, they and a paramedic who came into the room discussed problems that the Chicago Emergency Medical Service had faced, including problems with equipment, and the purchase of new ambulances for Chicago. Sajovic mentioned a channel 2 investigative study concerning Chicago’s emergency medical service. Sajovic admitted during the hearing that Perlman was not in the room when this conversation took place. Tracy testified that she did not recall any discussion of these subjects.

Kadzielawski testified that he felt it was in his interest to pass the class so that he could be promoted to lieutenant within the next two years.

The board found that Kadzielawski had displayed a distinct negative attitude toward emergency medical services by wearing a T-shirt with the “Compassion Sucks” legend; by stating that the emergency medical services were the ruination of fire departments; and by stating that he was reluctantly willing to become a paramedic and would enter the training program only because of the chief’s order. The board further found that he was openly critical of the Department and the chief by stating that the chief was stupid to expect him to attend such classes; by stating that he had been disruptive during a previous training program at a different hospital and by implying that he would be a similar problem at Christ Hospital.

With respect to Sajovic, the board found that he had also exhibited a distinct negative attitude toward paramedic services by stating to Perlman that he did not wish to take care of people and that he joined the Department to become a fire fighter and not a paramedic. Perlman testified that he told her that he had earned two baccalaureate degrees and that his prior inability to complete the training was not because he was not bright but had to do with his disinclination to “do that type of work.”

Perlman notified the Department by letter that the two fire fighters had been denied admission to the program at Christ Hospital because of their attitude toward the program. Apparently, Tracy had told the men initially that they received passing scores on the entrance examination. After Tracy recomputed the scores, however, she found that they were a few points short of passing. The test records were not produced during the hearings, leading the board to find that the Department had failed to establish that the men had, in fact, failed to obtain the minimum passing grades. The test results were not the basis for the hospital’s decision not to accept the fire fighters into the program, however.

The board concluded that the evidence concerning the behavior and statements of both plaintiffs under the circumstances demonstrated that neither wished to become paramedics or attend the classes at the hospital. In effect, they deliberately thwarted or sabotaged compliance with the chief’s order. They failed to become certified as paramedics as required by the Department order, and the board accordingly found that their conduct of February 17 constituted substantial shortcomings that required discipline short of discharge.

The board then imposed suspensions for 10 “duty days” consisting of 24-hour days (equating with 30 eight-hour days), plus fines in the amount of $3,500 against Kadzielawski and $1,500 against Sa-jovic.

Plaintiffs appealed to the circuit court of Cook County, which affirmed the suspensions but reduced the fines to sums of $500 and $200, respectively.

Opinion

Plaintiffs raise four issues. They challenge the propriety of the board’s imposition of discipline for what they characterize as their exercise of free speech concerning matters of public concern. Alternatively, they contend that the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. They also argue that the board lacks statutory authority to fine employees. Finally, they assert that they were victims of disparate and unequal treatment because two other fire fighters were not disciplined when they did not take the training program.

I

In an attempt to cloak their conduct with the protection of the first amendment, plaintiffs cite cases which uphold the rights of public employees to speak freely on matters of public concern, even if some statements appear derogatory to their employer. (See Schafer v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (1979), 69 Ill. App. 3d 677, 387 N.E.2d 976.) To fit within those cases plaintiffs contend that their comments of February 17, 1987, should be interpreted as related to health and safety matters of concern to the public. They concede that their desire to avoid paramedic duties was “arguably” a personal, rather than public, concern. Plaintiffs nevertheless maintain that their comments also served a public interest in safe and efficient fire fighting services.

We find little in the record to support plaintiffs’ first amendment argument. In Connick v. Myers (1983), 461 U.S. 138, 75 L. Ed. 2d 708, 103 S. Ct. 1684, the United States Supreme Court limited the extent to which an employee may use the first amendment as a shield from job-related discipline. The Court recognized free speech protection extending to matters of legitimate public concern, but noted that when “employee expression cannot be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, government officials should enjoy wide latitude in managing their offices, without intrusive oversight by the judiciary in the name of the First Amendment.” 461 U.S. at 146, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 719, 103 S. Ct. at 1690. Accord Norton v. Nicholson (1989), 187 Ill. App. 3d 1046, 543 N.E.2d 1053.

To guide the courts in determining which statements implicate community concerns, the Court in Connick stated that the content, form, and context of such statements should be analyzed. In Connick, an assistant prosecutor was discharged after expressing reluctance to accept a transfer to a different section and after circulating a questionnaire to her fellow employees that was implicitly critical of her superiors. One of the 14 questions — querying perceived pressure to work on political campaigns — touched upon a matter of public concern. However, the Court concluded that the questionnaire as a whole undermined office relationships and therefore found that the employer’s interests outweighed the employee’s interest in commenting on the matter touching on public concerns.

In the pending case, plaintiffs cannot deny that their reluctance to take the paramedic training involved personal reasons, including their complaints that the classes would interfere with vacation plans and be inconvenient to attend. Kadzielawski’s comments to Perlman that he was a disruption in the prior training class that he had attended and that the chief was “stupid” to think he would attend classes also indicates an attitude that has nothing to do with matters of public concern. The T-shirt Kadzielawski wore may have been offensive but would not, standing alone, justify discipline. It may be interpreted, however, as reflecting the negative attitude that the board found manifested in his course of conduct and comments while at Christ Hospital on February 17. Comments attributed to Sajovic, that he was intelligent enough to pass the classes but was not inclined to do paramedic work, also indicate a private desire not to have his fire fighting duties be extended to paramedic duties.

The mere fact that plaintiffs and another paramedic discussed a television news reporter’s story regarding Chicago’s fire department does not change the analysis. By plaintiffs’ admission, Perlman was out of the room during this conversation and the remarks were directed to the other paramedic, not Tracy. Plaintiffs were taking the entrance examination by order of their chief. They made it clear to the administrator of the hospital’s program that they were not happy to be there and that they, personally, did not want to participate in the training program. We find no reason to set aside the board’s decision based upon a first amendment challenge.

II

Our review of these facts also leads us to conclude that the decisions of the board and circuit court were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Plaintiffs urge us to reverse on the grounds that both fire fighters sat for the entrance examination and indicated a willingness to complete the program as being in their best interests.

The board considered this evidence along with the other testimony and concluded that plaintiffs had actually sabotaged their chances to be admitted into the hospital’s program by their actions. To the person charged with administering the program, Perlman, they had exhibited a strongly negative and critical attitude that could be construed as recalcitrant and counterproductive. Therefore, they could be viewed as complying with the letter of the chief’s order in showing up to take the examination, but at the same time ensuring their rejection from the administrator in charge of the training program. The board’s factual determination is one to which we must give substantial deference. See, e.g., Humbles v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (1977), 53 Ill. App. 3d 731, 368 N.E.2d 1049 (board has considerable discretion to determine whether cause for discipline exists and will not be reversed as long as the findings are related to the requirements of the service and not so trivial as to be capricious).

The board also found that plaintiffs’ behavior thwarted departmental efforts to increase the number of paramedics, resulting in a strain on existing paramedics, who were thus required to work shorthanded until the newly certified paramedics could be activated. The departmental order in question was undoubtedly meant to improve the service to the community because of a perceived need for training fire fighters to perform emergency medical services. By the nature of their work, fire fighters must deal with emergency situations involving great physical danger. If plaintiffs deliberately sabotaged their own training, because of their opposition to the policy expressed by the order, their conduct could certainly be viewed as thwarting the Department’s aims and thus having an adverse effect on morale, efficiency and discipline within the Department.

Ill

Plaintiffs next challenge the legal validity of the fines that the board assessed against them. In brief, plaintiffs contend that the board lacked statutory authority to levy any fines whatsoever, because the applicable State law only permits municipal corporations to issue 30-day suspensions or to discharge employees. Under plaintiffs’ theory, the fines imposed constitute additional days of suspension, forcing them to work without pay for 70 days, in Kadzielawski’s case, and 30 days, in Sajovic’s case. Moreover, plaintiffs argue that State law has preempted home rule authority in the area of wage laws and that similar policy rules require uniform disciplinary measures for police and fire personnel of the various municipalities.

The board, on the other hand, cross-appeals from the circuit court’s order that reduced the fines. The Village of Skokie, a home rule municipality, has passed an ordinance that specifically allows the imposition of fines, forfeiture of leave time, or any combination. The board therefore takes issue with the trial court’s determination that the fines imposed could not exceed the maximum fine imposed for violation of an ordinance.

The State law in question provides in relevant part that municipal boards of fire and police commissioners, after a hearing and a finding that an employee is guilty of charges, “may discharge him, or may suspend him not exceeding 30 days without pay.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 24, par. 10 — 2.1—17.) Plaintiffs maintain that this provision should be strictly construed so that no punishment in addition to the two specified may be given. They contend that uniformity of discipline promotes the State’s interest in maintaining a skilled labor force.

Home rule power, however, was created by the Illinois Constitution to allow qualifying municipalities to enact ordinances “pertaining to [their] government and affairs.” (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, §6(a).) The Village of Skokie, as a home rule municipality, has authority to enact ordinances that differ from or even conflict with State law provisions concerning police and fire personnel matters. (See Stryker v. Village of Oak Park (1976), 62 Ill. 2d 523, 343 N.E.2d 919; Cappitelli v. Rodewald (1988), 171 Ill. App. 3d 875, 525 N.E.2d 1037 (home rule municipality has jurisdiction to enact ordinance superseding section 10 — 2.1—17 of the Illinois Municipal Code, which governs discipline of fire and police personnel); Diamond v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (1983), 115 Ill. App. 3d 437, 445, 450 N.E.2d 879 (home rule municipality may adopt ordinance conflicting with State law governing appointment of boards of fire and police commissioners, section 10 — 2.1—3).) Plaintiffs’ reliance on People ex rel. Bernardi v. Highland Park (1988), 121 Ill. 2d 1, 520 N.E.2d 316, is misplaced because in that case the court was concerned with the uniformity of the State’s prevailing wage law and held that home rule authority could not abrogate the State’s pervasive regulatory scheme in that field. In the instant case, the Skokie ordinance involves a local, not statewide, concern for the discipline of public safety personnel in Skokie.

The circuit court found that Skokie had authority to impose fines but held that since fines are penal in nature, the village did not have the right to assess fines of “this magnitude.” The court stated that “the fines imposed can in no case exceed those fines which would be legally permissible were the Village of Skokie to prosecute parties or individuals under a village ordinance.” After reducing the fines accordingly, the court noted that “to permit fines in excess of those permitted under a village or home rule community ordinance would be contrary to the statute and would be contrary to the rights of the parties involved insofar as their rights to due process in a criminal case.”

We agree that Skokie’s ordinance provided the board with authority to impose a fine on plaintiffs. We further agree that the penal nature of fines is relevant in setting limits. (See section 5 — 5—2(c) of the Uniform Code of Corrections, which puts unclassified offenses without prison terms into the petty offense category, the maximum fine for which is $500 under section 5 — 9—1 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, pars. 1005 — 5—2, 1005 — 9—1). See also section 1— 2 — 1 of the Illinois Municipal Code, which limits the imposition of fines to $500 for ordinance violations (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 24, par. 1 — 2—1).) Neither side probes the circuit court’s analogy to ordinance violations, however, and guiding case law is scant. See generally Springfield v. Ushman (1979), 71 Ill. App. 3d 112, 388 N.E.2d 1357 (discussing applicability of the Uniform Code of Corrections section 5 — 9—1 to ordinance violation carrying penalty of $500 minimum and $1,000 maximum); City of Urbana v. Fuerst (1988), 172 Ill. App. 3d 570, 526 N.E.2d 907 (holding that Code provision requiring consideration of offender’s ability to pay a fine was not applicable to village ordinance that permitted consecutive fines in building code violation case).

We conclude that the circuit court in the pending case did not abuse its discretion and that there was a rational basis for the reduction of the fines. In so finding, we do not state a rule of law that automatically limits municipal fines to conform to the ones set out here. We merely hold that there is no persuasive reason to disturb the ruling of the circuit court on this issue.

IV

Finally, plaintiffs assert that the Department discriminated against them by not disciplining two other fire fighters who apparently did not attend the paramedic training classes at Christ Hospital. These fire fighters were excused for reasons that do not appear in the record, except for a reference to union negotiations.

There is insufficient evidence of record upon which to base a determination that the other two men were in fact similarly situated to plaintiffs. The record does not contain evidence that the other fire fighters sabotaged their chances for being accepted into the program or that the Department arbitrarily exempted them from paramedic training. Plaintiffs carry the burden of producing sufficient evidence on this issue, which they have not done; nor have they made an offer of proof to state the material facts upon which they rely. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the circuit court of Cook County in all respects.

Affirmed.

JOHNSON and JIGANTI, JJ., concur.


author: PRESIDING JUSTICE COCCIA

text:
      In re W.D., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. W.D., a Minor, Respondent-Appellant).
    First District (5th Division)
    No. 1—87—2490
    Opinion filed February 16, 1990.

      Randolph N. Stone, Public Defender, of Chicago (John Kennedy and Karen E. Tietz, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.
    Richard M. Daley, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Inge Fryklund, Jane E. Loeb, and David P. Gaughan, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
   PRESIDING JUSTICE COCCIA

delivered the opinion of the court:

On April 8, 1987, a petition for adjudication of wardship was filed in the circuit court of Cook County, juvenile division, alleging that W.D. was a delinquent minor (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 702 — 2), because he had committed the offenses of aggravated battery and the unlawful use of a weapon. Following an adjudicatory hearing, the trial judge found W.D. delinquent as charged. At a later dispositional hearing, W.D. was made a ward of the State and recommitted to the juvenile division of the Department of Corrections, where he had been placed following a prior adjudication on unrelated charges. The minor appeals.

On appeal, W.D. raises two issues for our consideration. He contends (1) that failure of the prosecution to effect service of summons on him prior to trial, as required by section 4 — 3 of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1987 Supp., ch. 37, par. 704 — 3), deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings and rendered all subsequent orders void; and (2) that certain evidentiary rulings of the trial judge during cross-examination of State’s witnesses constituted prejudicial error which violated his sixth amendment right to confront witnesses against him (U.S. Const., amend. YI). He requests that the trial court’s orders be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

We first address the jurisdictional question raised by minor respondent. The record reveals that a probable cause hearing in this case was held on April 8, 1987. At this time W.D., with his aunt and custodian, Dorothy S., were present in court. The public defender accepted appointment as W.D.’s counsel, waived the reading of the petition, and stipulated to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. On the same date, Dorothy S. signed a waiver and consent document by which she waived, on behalf of herself and W.D., service of summons and any defects in service of process, and consented to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The trial judge ordered that W.D.’s mother, who resided at a known address in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, be served with summons by certified mail. There was a finding of “no contact” with W.D.’s father, whose address was unknown.

The trial commenced on April 22, 1987, with minor respondent and his mother present in court. W.D. was also before the court for all subsequent proceedings, including further trial proceedings on May 4, 1987, and the conclusion of the trial on May 7, 1987, when the court found him delinquent as charged. As proceedings opened on May 7, the court appointed the public defender as guardian ad litem for W.D., having been informed that his mother was not present and was apparently ill in Milwaukee.

Throughout the course of the trial, neither W.D. nor his attorney raised any objection based on lack of service on minor respondent. However, it appears from the record that service of petition and summons on W.D. did not take place until July 10, 1987, after the trial had concluded and while he was in custody pending the dispositional hearing. On that date, the public defender filed a written motion to dismiss on the ground that W.D., a named respondent, had not been personally served prior to trial as required by the Juvenile Court Act, and that this omission rendered void all subsequent court orders, including the adjudication of delinquency.

The dispositional hearing, as rescheduled, was held on July 24, 1987. W.D.’s mother, after proper and timely notice, had been excused from attendance at this and any further proceedings upon her own in-court request. Minor respondent appeared at the hearing with counsel, and the public defender was again appointed his guardian ad litem. Following arguments, the court denied W.D.’s motion to dismiss and proceeded with the dispositional hearing, at the conclusion of which it entered an order adjudicating wardship and recommitting W.D. to the Department of Corrections.

At the time of the filing of the petition in this case, section 4 — 3 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1965, as amended, provided in pertinent part:

“When a petition is filed, the clerk of the court shall issue a summons with a copy of the petition attached. The summons shall be directed to the minor’s legal guardian or custodian and to each person named as a respondent in the petition.” (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1987 Supp., ch. 37, par. 704 — 3(1).)

This section was subsequently amended by the legislature to provide that summons need not be directed to a minor respondent under eight years of age for whom an appointed guardian ad litem appears at proceedings. In a recent decision, this court applied the 1988 amendment retroactively to govern juvenile proceedings which commenced in 1986 (In re R.W. (1988), 176 Ill. App. 3d 868, 531 N.E.2d 924), adopting the approach of the supreme court in In re Pronger (1987), 118 Ill. 2d 512, 517 N.E.2d 1076 (applying retroactively the previous amendment to section 4 — 3(1)). We therefore see no reason why the 1988 language should not apply here. However, regardless of whether the 1987 or the 1988 language governs, the fact that W.D. was over eight years of age is not determinative of the jurisdictional issue in this case.

Minor respondent contends that failure to timely serve him rendered all subsequent court orders void due to a consequent lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have examined the cases cited by minor respondent to support this contention and have found them inap-posite, as the effect of any failure of service, as explained below, is determined by his own waiver of that requirement.

Initially, we observe that jurisdiction of the subject matter “is the power to adjudge concerning the general question involved, and if a complaint states a case belonging to a general class over which the authority of the court extends, the jurisdiction attaches.” (In re Vaught (1981), 103 Ill. App. 3d 802, 803, 431 N.E.2d 1231, 1232, quoting Wood v. First National Bank (1943), 383 Ill. 515, 522, 50 N.E.2d 830, 834.) In Illinois, the circuit courts have original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters. (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, §9; In re Sexton (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 312, 319-20, 418 N.E.2d 729, 733.) The Juvenile Court Act further provides that proceedings concerning delinquency of minors are justiciable in the circuit courts. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 702 — 1; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 805 — 1.) A “delinquent minor,” for purposes of such proceedings, is defined as “any minor who prior to his 17th birthday has violated or attempted to violate, regardless of where the act occurred, any federal or state law or municipal ordinance.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 702 — 2; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 805 — 3.) W.D., a 16-year-old respondent charged with violating two State criminal statutes, clearly falls within this definition. Furthermore, this court has stated that while the Juvenile Court Act dictates the procedures to be employed in certain proceedings, such as those pertaining to service of process, the mandatory nature of the provision is not necessarily a limitation on the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. (In re Vaught (1981), 103 Ill. App. 3d 802, 804, 431 N.E.2d 1231, 1232-33.) Therefore, we believe that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over W.D.’s delinquency proceedings and that the jurisdictional issue before us relates solely to personal jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of the person is the court’s power to bind a particular person to its judgment and requires in part that the defendant be given sufficient notice. (In re Vaught (1981), 103 Ill. App. 3d 802, 804, 431 N.E.2d 1231, 1233.) The provisions of the Juvenile Court Act relating to service upon minors, custodians, and legal guardians provide a method for implementing the basic constitutional requirements of due process and fairness. (See In re Application of Gault (1967), 387 U.S. 1, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527, 87 S. Ct. 1428.) However, as this court has stated on two recent occasions, under similar facts, where a juvenile or any named respondent appears before the court and participates in the proceedings, he waives the formality of service of process and voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court. (In re T.O. (1989), 187 Ill. App. 3d 970, 543 N.E.2d 969 (15-year-old respondent, charged with aggravated battery, unlawful use of a weapon and other offenses, waived any challenge to court’s jurisdiction when he appeared and participated in proceedings, represented by counsel and with parents having actual notice and often in attendance, although he was never formally served); People v. D.J. (1988), 175 Ill. App. 3d 491, 529 N.E.2d 1048 (minor respondent over eight years of age, charged with aggravated battery, who appeared before the court and was represented by public defender, entered an admission, and was committed to Department of Corrections, thereby waived any challenge to court’s jurisdiction over his person). See also People v. Land (1988), 169 Ill. App. 3d 342, 523 N.E.2d 711 (by appearing before the court on numerous occasions, represented by counsel, without objection until summons was later served as he was transferred to criminal court for prosecution as adult, minor submitted to juvenile court’s jurisdiction).) Likewise, in the instant case, the minor respondent appeared, was represented by counsel, and was present throughout all proceedings. His mother had actual notice of the proceedings and attended some of them, while respondent was represented by a court-appointed guardian ad litem in her absence. No objection was raised to the court’s jurisdiction until after the trial. Further, there is no evidence that W.D. lacked actual notice of the charges against him prior to trial. His own attorney waived the reading of the petition in open court. Finally, there is nothing in the record indicating that failure of timely service prejudiced W.D., his mother, or any other party to this case. We therefore hold, consistent with the above-cited authority, that the trial court had jurisdiction to enter its orders respecting the interest of minor respondent, who, by his own actions, waived any jurisdictional challenge based upon failure of timely service.

We next turn to the more difficult issue of whether evidentiary errors at trial resulted in a denial of minor respondent’s constitutional right to confront witnesses against him. W.D.’s three-count delinquency petition alleged the following criminal violations: (1) aggravated battery causing great bodily harm (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 12 — 4(a)); (2) aggravated battery while armed with a deadly weapon (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 12 — 4(b)(1)); and (3) unlawful use of a weapon, specifically, a knife with an eight-inch blade (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 24 — 1(a)(2)). The incident giving rise to these charges was an altercation involving four teenaged boys in W.D.’s Chicago neighborhood. At the adjudicatory hearing, the State presented the testimony of the complaining witness, his sister, who was an eyewitness, and an investigating police officer. The defense presented three witnesses, all present at the scene of the incident. W.D. did not testify.

Eric J. (Eric), the 15-year-old complaining witness, testified that about 4:30 p.m. on April 7, 1987, he was playing basketball near the intersection of Homan and Ohio Avenues in Chicago. His friend, John V. (John), appeared at this location and informed Eric that Eric’s sister was involved in a fight nearby. Eric and John then walked to the area where the fight was supposedly occurring, and where Eric observed John hit a boy known to him as “Pee Wee.” Pee Wee was later identified as Robert D., a cousin of minor respondent. Eric next saw Robert D. (Robert) “pull a knife on John,” and responded by hitting Robert once in the face, using his fist. Eric stated that he was not carrying a razor or any other weapon at the time. After Eric hit him, Robert fell to the ground, and Eric stepped back. Eric stated that he immediately felt pain in his lower back. At that point, he could see W.D., whom he had known for about five years, standing approximately two feet away. There was no one standing between Eric and W.D. Then W.D. “ran,” and as Eric crossed the street, a friend told him that his back was bleeding. Eric went directly to the home of his aunt, who notified his mother. Eric’s mother then took him to Franklin Boulevard Hospital, where he was treated in the emergency room and remained hospitalized for two days. Following this testimony, Eric indicated for the court a scar on his back, approximately 1 inch to V-lz inches long. It was described for the record as a stab puncture wound located two inches to the right of the spine, about the waist.

On cross-examination, Eric recalled that when he arrived at the location where his sister had supposedly been fighting, and where the altercation between John and Robert occurred, about 50 people were already standing around, watching. Eric understood at the time that the crowd had congregated to watch an earlier fight between girls. Some boys at the scene told him that “Pee Wee” had hit Eric’s sister, but Eric decided to let Pee Wee (Robert D.) and John fight, and not to “jump in it” himself. However, when he saw “Pee Wee pull the knife on John,” Eric hit him. Eric’s testimony on cross-examination was somewhat confused and conflicting. At one point he stated that Pee Wee pulled out a belt while fighting with John, and that after John hit Pee Wee, Pee Wee was also going to pull a knife out, so Eric hit him. Yet, Eric twice answered “no” to the question, “Did you see John hitting Pee Wee?” When asked if John had a bottle in his hand, he answered, “I don’t know. I guess so.”

Kareyonai J. (Kareyonai), Eric’s 13-year-old sister, testified that about 4:30 p.m. on April 7, 1987, she was standing near the intersection of Homan and Ohio, with a crowd of about 50 other people, when she saw Eric walking with his friend John V. Pee Wee (Robert) and W.D. were walking behind Eric and John. John turned around and hit Robert once, with his fist. Then Robert “reached into his left side and pulled out a knife.”- Eric then hit Robert once, with his fist. At this point, Eric “stepped back,” and W.D. stabbed Eric with a knife. Ka-reyonai stated that at the time she observed her brother being stabbed, she was about five feet away from Eric and W.D. She described the weather as “sunny,” and further stated that no persons or other obstacles blocked her view. She testified that she saw the knife used to stab her brother, and indicated its length as between six and eight inches long. She also made an in-court identification of W.D., whom she had known for five years at the time of the incident, as the person who stabbed her brother. Kareyonai further testified that after the stabbing, both Robert and W.D. “ran,” but she left the scene and did not follow them.

On cross-examination, Kareyonai recalled that Eric had not been at this location, where she and a large crowd had gathered earlier to watch two girls fighting, until John Y. left the area and then returned with Eric. Kareyonai also stated that when the fight involving her brother occurred, John did not have a bottle in his hand. After John hit Robert, Robert pulled his knife from his belt buckle. She described Robert’s knife as about six to eight inches long. She further testified that although there were adults among those in the crowd, no one attempted to intervene. Having stated that when Eric “stepped back,” W.D. “pushed the knife up,” Kareyonai was asked by defense counsel where Pee Wee (Robert) was at this time. She answered that Pee Wee was “over there where John was,” and twice answered “no” when asked if Pee Wee was on the ground. She further stated that she did not see what John was doing at this time; she was looking at her brother. The following colloquy, which is the first instance complained of by minor respondent, then occurred:

“MR. FINKLE [Defense attorney]: Did you see what Pee Wee was doing?
MS. FEIGER [Assistant State’s Attorney]: Objection. Asked and answered.
MR. FINKLE: Your Honor, I am just trying to find out. He stepped back. I am trying to find out what from. What he stepped back into.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. FINKLE: From what did your brother Eric step back?
MR. DILLON [Assistant State’s Attorney]: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. FEIGER: Speculative.
MR. FINKLE: What is your Honor’s basis for sustaining the objection?
THE COURT: Move on to your next question, counsel.”

Kareyonai then testified that her brother Eric “walked to [her] auntie’s house” after he was stabbed, but she did not follow him there or accompany him to the hospital.

Chicago police officer John Rowski testified that he was assigned to investigate an aggravated battery about 6 p.m. on April 7, 1987, and that he and two partners interviewed Eric J. in his room at Franklin Boulevard Hospital at approximately 8 p.m. Officer Rowski stated that during this interview, Eric gave the police a nickname of the person who allegedly stabbed him and an address. The officers then went to a third-floor apartment at the corner of Ohio and Ho-man, where a woman who identified herself as Dorothy S., minor respondent’s aunt, answered the door. When the officers explained that they were looking for a boy with a certain nickname, she went to another room in the apartment and returned with W.D. Officer Rowski further stated that there were about seven people in the room at this time, including W.D. and his aunt. Following a conversation, W.D. and an officer recovered a knife from inside the apartment. Minor respondent gave the knife to the officer.

Officer Rowski further testified that he and his partners accompanied W.D. to a stated address on West St. Louis and another stated address on North Hamlin. They then met with Kareyonai J. at a third location. Following this interview, the officers drove W.D. to the police station, where he was read his Miranda rights and placed under arrest. Officer Rowski further stated that W.D. made an admission to him at the police station in the presence of two other officers. Direct examination of Officer Rowski then continued:

“Q. What did he [W.D.] say to you?
A. He told me that his cousin by the nickname of Pee Wee was involved in a fight with the victim, Eric J[.] And that during the fight, Eric J[.] was pulling — He was arguing with his cousin and another subject came up to his cousin and gave him a punch to the face. At that time, the victim came up behind the cousin. At which time he came up behind the victim and stabbed him in the back.
He also stated that during this time the victim was armed with a razor.
Q. Did you recover any razor in your investigation of this case?
A. No.”

During cross-examination, Officer Rowski explained that the purpose of the visit to the West St. Louis address with W.D. was to locate John V., but John was not there. Defense counsel next posed a series of questions relating to minor respondent’s admission at the police station. The officer stated that W.D. told police that Eric J. and John V. were fighting with his cousin, that Eric came up behind his cousin and “tried pulling him down,” and that W.D., who was already on the scene, then came up behind Eric and stabbed him. The following colloquy, representing the second instance of trial error complained of, then occurred:

“MR. FINKLE [Defense attorney]: Did W[.D.] tell you that John V[.] had a bottle?
MS. FEIGER [Assistant State’s Attorney]: Objection.
MR. FINKLE: Your Honor, I am going to the statement that W[.]D[.] made. I wish to know if he did.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question if you wish to do so. MR. FINKLE: What else did W[.]D[.] tell you about what John V[.] did?
MR. DILLON [Assistant State’s Attorney]: Your Honor, objection.
THE COURT: He may answer.
A. I don’t recall him saying anything else about that particular incident other than him saying John V[.] hit his cousin in the face with his fist.
MR. FINKLE: Did W[.D.] say that John V[.] had waved a bottle at his cousin?
MR. DILLON: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. FINKLE: Did W[.D.] say that anyone had a bottle in his hand?
MR. DILLON: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. FINKLE: Didn’t W[.D.] say that John V[.] tried to hit his cousin Pee Wee with a bottle in the head?
MR. DILLON: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.”

Officer Rowski was also asked whether W.D. had said that his cousin was bleeding during the incident. The officer stated that, during the conversation in his aunt’s apartment, W.D. had pointed to a scratch on Robert D.’s face. According to Rowski, the scratch was “located in the corner near [Robert D.’s] eye” and “appeared to be a finger nail cut.” Defense counsel then showed the witness a written police “Supplementary Report,” which the witness identified as containing a summary of the statements which W.D. made to police. The testimony continued as follows:

“MR. FINKLE: And did W[.D.] tell you that Eric J[.], the victim, had a razor in his hands?
A. That is what he said, yes.
Q. Did you ever conduct a — Did you ever do an interview with Eric J[.]?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you do a search of Eric J[.]?
A. He was at the hospital.
MR. DILLON: Objection, your Honor, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. FINKLE: And did you ever interview John V[.]?
MR. DILLON: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. FINKLE: Did you ever do a search of John V[.]?
MR. DILLON: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. FINKLE: Were you also informed by W[.D.] that John V[.] had a gun?
MR. DILLON: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. FINKLE: Did you ever recover a gun?
MR. DILLON: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.”

At this juncture in the proceedings, defense counsel sought clarification as to the nature of the State’s objections and the reasons for the court’s rulings on those objections. He further stated, for the record, that he believed the rulings sustaining the foregoing State’s objections had no basis in law. The court declined to state reasons for its rulings and directed defense counsel to ask his next question. After testifying that he did not witness any of the altercation in question, Officer Rowski was excused.

The first defense witness was Robert D., 19-year-old cousin of minor respondent, who stated that his nickname was “Pee Wee.” He testified that on April 7, 1987, he was upstairs in his aunt’s apartment when a fight between two girls occurred “out back,” in a vacant lot, or alley, behind a building near the intersection of Ohio and Ho-man. He and three cousins, including W.D., went downstairs to watch the fight. As the cousins were watching the fight, along with about 20 others, “John,” whose last name he did not know, tried to hit him “behind the head” with a bottle. Robert D. further stated that his aunt, Dorothy S., responded by directing all the cousins to go back upstairs, into the apartment building. Robert went upstairs, but after “about a minute,” he went back outside, where he asked John [V.] why he had tried to hit him “behind the head with the bottle.” He recalled that John, who was with about four other boys at the time, started talking “all crazy.” Again, his aunt intervened, directing Robert D. to come back across the street. John followed Robert D. and Dorothy S. across the street, still “talking crazy.” Other boys also arrived on the scene. Robert testified that at that moment, John hit him once, in his forehead, and that “Eric,” whom he knew only by first name, hit him from behind. Robert further stated that he knew that it was Eric who had hit him from behind because when he fell down, Eric was standing above him. Eric also cut Robert’s face with “something,” by the right side of his nose, but Robert testified that he did not know what Eric cut him with. As Robert was getting up, the next thing he saw was W.D. “chasing Eric.” Robert then turned back toward John. He further recalled that his Aunt Dorothy intervened at this point and “made [Robert and W.D.] go back upstairs.” Later, when the cousins were standing outside on the porch, John returned with some other boys and asked Robert D. if he “wanted to play pistol play.” On cross-examination, Robert D. also testified that following the incident, when he returned to his aunt’s apartment, he did not know that Eric had been stabbed.

Eddie G., a 30-year-old cousin of W.D., Robert D., and Dorothy S., testified that on April 7, 1987, at about 4 to 4:30 p.m., he and Dorothy were sitting in his parked car, behind her apartment building, conversing. He was in the driver’s seat, and Dorothy S. was in the front passenger seat. He recalled that there were some girls fighting nearby. He also observed Robert D., W.D., and “some guys trying to fight Robert.” Then, as John [V.] “pulled a bottle behind Robert’s head,” W.D. told Robert about the bottle, and John “never hit him with it.” Eddie G. further stated that at the time these events took place, he was about 20 feet away from Robert and W.D., and had an unobstructed view of the events he witnessed. He next observed Robert and John engaging in a “heated conversation,” and then saw Robert go “back into the house.” Eddie G., who remained seated in his car, recalled that he next observed Robert and W.D. walking across the street toward John, where Robert and John confronted each other about their previous conversation. At this point, five other young men, including Eric J., crossed the street to where Robert and John were standing. The witness recalled that the oldest among them was “at least” 24 years of age.

Eddie G. further testified as to what happened next. He stated that he saw John “swing on” Robert, and Eric come around Robert and hit him, pulling Robert down to the ground. He then saw W.D. chasing Eric. He stated that he did not see whether W.D. had anything in his hand. He did not see anyone get stabbed or anyone bleeding. He further testified that while W.D. was chasing Eric, and Robert was “getting up off the ground,” the other young men were “still standing there.” At that moment, Eddie G. started to exit his car, “because Robert was by himself at the time.” However, Dorothy S. got out of the car first. Then the other boys near Robert “just broke away,” and the incident ended. Eddie G. further stated that he never lost sight of W.D. as he chased Eric across the street. Eric had just crossed the curb when W.D. “stopped and came back,” after his aunt called him. Eddie then got out of his car and went upstairs into Dorothy’s apartment. He further testified that about five minutes after the fight had ended, when he and some of his cousins, including W.D., were on the porch of the apartment building, John walked up to the building with his right hand in his pocket. John “stood there for about five minutes,” and then left. When asked if he ever saw Eric again, Eddie G. responded, “Not until the following day.”

Dorothy S. testified that about 4:30 p.m. on April 7, 1987, she was seated in a parked car in an alley close to her apartment building on Homan Avenue, along with her cousin, Eddie G. She recalled that about 15 or 20 persons were watching a fight between two girls, and that she observed W.D. and Robert D. standing among the crowd watching the fight. At some point, she saw Robert cross the street and begin speaking with “John,” whose last name she did not know. She then exited the car, crossed the street, and told Robert to come back to the other side of the street. Dorothy S. further testified that John followed Robert and herself back across to the side of the street nearer her apartment, whereupon John and Robert began arguing. At this time, Dorothy S. observed “Eric,” whom she knew only by first name, come across the street and hit Robert, who fell to the ground. Eric stood over Robert, behind him, while John stood in front of Robert, who was on the ground. W.D. then came from behind Eric. The next thing that Dorothy S. observed was W.D. and Eric “run[ning] down the street.” However, she stated that after two or three minutes, she was able to get both W.D. and Robert to go back upstairs into her apartment. On cross-examination, Dorothy S. testified that she had known both John and Eric for about two years. She further stated that about one year before this incident, both boys had been friends of W.D.

In his closing argument, defense counsel contended that the testimony of Robert D. and other witnesses supported the conclusion that W.D. was acting in defense of his cousin, who was being beaten by two other youths, at the time that he cut Eric J. in the back. While counsel did not dispute, nor is it disputed by W.D.’s counsel on appeal, that minor respondent did in fact cut Eric J. with a knife on the afternoon in question, he argued that this act was justified as defense of another, the use of a knife being a necessary and appropriate use of force under the particular circumstances. He further argued, in regard to the charge of an unlawful use of a weapon, that W.D. obtained the knife for the purpose of aiding his cousin and not with the intent of using it unlawfully, and then immediately replaced it in the family apartment. Defense counsel therefore requested a finding of no delinquency. The State countered with the argument that stabbing a person in the back after only two punches had been thrown was an excessive use of force, that the use of deadly force was not justified under these circumstances, and that, therefore, a finding of delinquency should be entered on all three counts. The court, without further comment, found W.D. delinquent as charged.

Before turning to minor respondent’s contention that limitations placed on the cross-examination of two State’s witnesses effectively denied him his constitutional right of confrontation, we must address the State’s argument that W.D. has waived this issue by failing to raise it in a post-trial motion. The State bases its waiver argument on the general rule enunciated by our supreme court in People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186, 522 N.E.2d 1124, 1130, which requires both a trial objection and a written post-trial motion in order to preserve a question of trial error for appellate review. However, this court has recently rejected the premise that the Enoch rule applies to appeals from delinquent minor proceedings under the Juvenile Court Act. (In re C.L. (1989), 180 Ill. App. 3d 173, 534 N.E.2d 1330.) As we observed in C.L., the requirement for a written post-trial motion derives from section 116 — 1(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 116 — 1(b)). It is not a requirement of the Juvenile Court Act. We further stated that we do not construe either Supreme Court Rule 660(a), which provides that appeals from final judgments in delinquent minor proceedings are “governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases,” or section 5 — 18 of the Juvenile Court Act, which states that the “rules of evidence” in criminal proceedings are applicable to delinquency hearings, to require the filing of a post-trial motion in a delinquency case. (107 Ill. 2d R. 660(a); Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 805 — 18; In re C.L., 180 Ill. App. 3d at 177, 534 N.E.2d at 1334.) Accordingly, the objections to evidentiary rulings raised by minor respondent’s counsel during the adjudicatory hearing suffice to preserve the confrontation issue for review.

Minor respondent points to three instances during cross-examination of State’s witnesses when, he contends, testimony was improperly limited by the trial judge. The first occurred when Kareyonai J. was not permitted to answer defense counsel’s questions relating to what her brother, Eric, “stepped back from,” as W.D. cut him with a knife, and to “what Pee Wee was doing” at that time. The second and third occurred during cross-examination of Officer Rowski relating to W.D.’s admission to police that he stabbed Eric at a time when Eric and John V. were fighting with his cousin, and when Eric had a razor in his hand. The State maintains that the trial judge properly limited the scope of cross-examination because defense counsel’s questions had already been asked and answered and because minor respondent “tried to present his defense through the People’s witnesses during cross-examination.” Alternatively, the State maintains that, even if the trial judge erred on any particular ruling, the error was “certainly harmless based on the abundant evidence of the respondent’s guilt.” Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable rules of law, we cannot agree with the State’s contentions.

The sixth amendment (U.S. Const., amend VI) guarantees the right of an accused to confront witnesses against him through cross-examination, a necessary right for a fair trial. (Pointer v. Texas (1965), 380 U.S. 400, 13 L. Ed. 2d 923, 85 S. Ct. 1065; People v. Campos (1987), 155 Ill. App. 3d 348, 358, 507 N.E.2d 1342, 1348.) The right to an effective cross-examination extends to juvenile respondents in delinquency proceedings. (In re Gault (1967), 387 U.S. 1, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527, 87 S. Ct. 1428.) The Juvenile Court Act further provides that in considering the question of whether a minor is delinquent, the court will apply the standard of proof and the rules of evidence in the nature of criminal proceedings in this State. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 704 — 6; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 805 — 18.) Accordingly, we consider the question of whether the trial judge’s,-rulings limiting cross-examination were error, and if so, whether they were reversible error, under the same rules and standards applicable to a criminal case.

With regard to rulings limiting cross-examination, it is well established that the scope of cross-examination rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing court will overturn its ruling only where there was an abuse of discretion which resulted in manifest prejudice to the defendant. (People v. Owens (1984), 102 Ill. 2d 88, 103, 464 N.E.2d 261, 268; People v. Williams (1989), 180 Ill. App. 3d 294, 304, 535 N.E.2d 993, 999.) Our review of Kareyonai J.’s testimony leads us to conclude that the trial judge acted within his discretion in limiting cross-examination of this witness. We cannot say that it was error for the judge to sustain the State’s objection that Kareyonai had already answered defense counsel’s questions. She had just answered that Pee Wee (Robert D.) was “over there where John was,” and had twice stated that he was not on the ground. She had also described in some detail the prior sequence of events during the fight. While further clarification might have been permitted, we cannot say that precluding such testimony was an abuse of discretion. However, we reach the opposite conclusion with respect to the limitations placed on defense counsel’s cross-examination of Officer Rowski. For reasons which follow, we find that these rulings were error, and that under the particular facts of this case, they constituted reversible error in that they manifestly prejudiced minor respondent’s defense.

As a general rule, cross-examination is limited to the subject matter inquired into on direct examination. However, it is well settled that a criminal defendant is entitled on cross-examination to develop all circumstances within the knowledge of a State’s witness which explain, qualify, discredit or destroy his direct testimony (People v. Strother (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 95, 290 N.E.2d 201; People v. Provo (1951), 409 Ill. 63, 97 N.E.2d 802; People v. Guyon (1983), 117 Ill. App. 3d 522, 453 N.E.2d 849), “although they may incidentally constitute new matter which aids the cross-examiner’s case” (emphasis added) (People v. Williams (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 478, 486, 363 N.E.2d 801, 805). Furthermore, it is well established that where a conversation is related by a witness, the opposing party has a right to bring out all of the conversation on cross-examination. (People v. Weaver (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 545, 556, 442 N.E.2d 255; People v. Shelton (1986), 140 Ill. App. 3d 886, 893, 489 N.E.2d 879.) One cannot introduce a portion of a conversation and then bar the opposing party from bringing out the rest of that conversation. (People v. Futia (1983), 116 Ill. App. 3d 68, 72, 452 N.E.2d 109, 112.) The doctrine of completeness permits a party to introduce the remainder of a conversation or writing in order to explain, qualify, or otherwise shed light on that portion of a statement introduced by an opponent (People v. Pietryzk (1987), 153 Ill. App. 3d 428, 438, 505 N.E.2d 1228, 1234), so as to correctly convey its true meaning to the trier of fact (People v. Hosty (1986), 146 Ill. App. 3d 876, 884, 497 N.E.2d 334, 339.)

Nonetheless, the State maintains that the trial judge properly limited the scope of respondent’s cross-examination of Officer Rowski because respondent’s questions were beyond the scope of direct examination. The State further asserts, in its brief submitted to this court, that “rather than impeaching the prosecution’s witnesses, respondent attempted to elicit evidence from Officer Rowski during cross-examination which he should have introduced in his case in chief. In doing so, the respondent attempted to undermine the trial process by protecting potential defense witnesses from cross-examination by the People.” The State cites no supporting authority for this assertion, which directly contradicts the long-standing rules of evidence stated above. It is clear that all four questions posed by respondent as to whether John V. had a bottle in his hand or used a bottle in a manner threatening to respondent’s cousin, Pee Wee, as well as the question about John Y. having a gun, related directly to the same conversations between W.D. and Officer Rowski to which the officer had testified on both direct and cross-examination. The questions also related to the same incident which formed the substance of that testimony, an incident during which, as already indicated by the complaining witness, John V. may have had a bottle in his hand. Moreover, these questions were within the proper scope of cross-examination, regardless of whether they potentially aided minor respondent’s case, because they were an attempt to develop all circumstances within Officer Rowski’s knowledge which would tend to explain, qualify, or discredit his previous account of W.D.’s admission, particularly his statement that he could “not recall” W.D. saying anything about “that particular incident” except that John V. had hit his cousin in the face with his fist. We further note that an attempt to develop or qualify witness testimony in this manner may serve to cast doubt on the credibility of the testimony as well as to clarify its meaning and context for the trier of fact. Moreover, we find the State’s contention, that defense counsel failed to set forth an offer of proof which would have indicated that the evidence he sought to elicit from Officer Rowski was competent and relevant, to be without merit. From the officer’s remarks about minor respondent’s statements to police, and the entire line of questioning which followed during cross-examination, it was clear that defense of others was going to be an issue, and a proper foundation had thus been laid for examining the witness about W.D.’s statements as they related to the full set of circumstances which W.D. perceived as threatening his cousin. While there was no specific offer of proof as to a bottle or a gun being in John V.’s possession, we believe that the circumstances and the questions themselves sufficiently indicated to the trial judge the purpose and substance of the evidence sought, and that the testimony would have been material to W.D.’s defense. (See People v. Husted (1981), 97 III. App. 3d 160, 168, 422 N.E.2d 962, 968; E. Cleary & M. Graham, Handbook of Illinois Evidence, §103.7, at 17-18 (4th ed. 1984).) For all of the above reasons, we find that the questions posed relating to the bottle, as well as the subsequent question, “Were you also informed by W[.D.] that John V[.] had a gun?” were proper under the applicable rules of law.

We acknowledge that the instances of error cited cannot be extended to all of the rulings to which minor respondent objects. The preclusion of some questions which ventured into other areas of Officer Rowski’s investigation was properly within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Nonetheless, while the number and kind of errors which occurred would not necessarily rise to prejudicial error in every case, they do so here because of the particular combination of facts and legal issues involved, the rather closely balanced factual evidence relating to respondent’s defense, and the State’s burden to negate that defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defense of another person is an affirmative defense (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, pars. 7 — 1, 7 — 14; People v. Torres (1977), 47 Ill. App. 3d 101, 107, 361 N.E.2d 803, 808), and once it is raised by the introduction of some evidence by either the State or the defense, the State has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to that issue, as well as all other elements of the offense. (People v. Rorer (1976), 44 Ill. App. 3d 553, 558, 358 N.E.2d 681, 684.) In the instant case, the State’s introduction of W.D.’s statement that he stabbed Eric J. when Eric and another boy were fighting with W.D.’s cousin, and that Eric, armed with a razor, had tried to pull his cousin down, was sufficient to raise the issue of defense of others. (See People v. Rorer (1976), 44 Ill. App. 3d 553, 558, 358 N.E.2d 681, 684.) Substantial evidence introduced by other witnesses also supports this defense, the elements of which are defined in the Criminal Code of 1961:

“A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.” (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 7 — 1.)

This court has more specifically delineated the elements justifying the use of force in defense of person as follows: (1) that force is threatened against a person; (2) that the person threatened is not the aggressor; (3) that the danger of harm is imminent; (4) that the force threatened is unlawful; (5) that the person threatened must actually believe: (a) that a danger exists, (b) that the use of force is necessary to avert the danger, and (c) that the kind and amount of force which he uses is necessary; and (6) that the above beliefs are reasonable. Furthermore, the use of deadly force is limited to those situations in which (a) the threatened force will cause death or great bodily harm or (b) the force threatened is a forcible felony. People v. Williams (1965), 56 Ill. App. 2d 159, 165-66, 105 N.E.2d 749, 752.

It is clear from the trial testimony, summarized above in some detail in order to present the surrounding circumstances of W.D.’s act as conveyed to the trier of fact, that there was ample evidence for the court to conclude that unlawful force, involving imminent danger of harm, was threatened against minor respondent’s cousin by Eric J. and John V., acting in concert, at the time that minor respondent cut Eric in the back. Moreover, there is no evidence suggesting that Robert D. was the initial aggressor in this confrontation. Therefore, the crucial questions for the trial court, assuming it determined that W.D.’s use of the knife in a manner which caused Eric’s resulting injury was a use of deadly force, were: (1) whether W.D. actually believed that imminent danger of death or great bodily harm to his cousin existed and that the use of deadly force was necessary to avert the danger, and (2) that if he did so believe, that these beliefs were reasonable. Whether an otherwise criminal act is justified under the law of self-defense depends on all of the surrounding facts and circumstances. (People v. Woods (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 537, 542, 410 N.E.2d 866, 868-69; In re C.P. (1986), 141 Ill. App. 3d 1018, 1022, 491 N.E.2d 44, 48.) A defendant is not required to be correct in his assessment of the danger presented by a set of circumstances, and a belief may be reasonable even if he is mistaken. (People v. Williams (1965), 56 Ill. App. 2d 159, 166, 205 N.E.2d 749, 753.) The question here is whether the facts as they appeared to W.D. at the time and under the circumstances there present were such to indicate to him, as a reasonable person, that his cousin was in danger of losing his life or suffering great bodily injury. (See People v. Duncan (1924), 315 Ill. 106, 111, 145 N.E.2d 810, 812.) It is also the law in Illinois, as in many other jurisdictions, that a person defending another stands in the other’s shoes and may do whatever the other would be justified in doing to defend himself. (People v. Forte (1915), 269 Ill. 505, 510, 110 N.E. 47, 4849; See 1 S. Wharton, Criminal Evidence §168 (14th ed. 1985).) The evidence presented in this case must be considered in light of the foregoing principles.

Several conclusions may safely be drawn from the trial record before us: (1) that the evidence which was admitted overwhelmingly supports a determination that W.D. committed the act of cutting Eric J. with a knife; (2) that a trier of fact could reasonably conclude from the evidence admitted that this act, whether based on the weapon used or the nature of the injury inflicted, or both, constituted an aggravated battery, if that act were unjustified, in that all of the elements of the offense itself were proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) that, based solely on the evidence admitted, a trier of fact could reasonably conclude that W.D.’s act was not legally justified under the circumstances. However, considering the testimony of all the witnesses and the possible inferences therefrom, the case was a close one in our view. The State’s burden to negate the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt is a high burden, and evidence as to the state of a defendant’s- mind, at the moment he acted, as probative of a reasonable belief that a certain degree of force was necessary to avert a particular degree of harm is always material, and often crucial, evidence where defense of person is the issue. (See People v. Williams (1977), 45 Ill. App. 3d 338, 343, 359 N.E.2d 736, 739.) Furthermore, the accused in a criminal prosecution should be given wide latitude in cross-examining State’s witnesses. (People v. Smylie (1981), 103 Ill. App. 3d 679, 684, 431 N.E.2d 1130, 1134.) It is also well established that a defendant claiming self-defense may show specific acts of violence and threats by the victim which are known to him, and that he should be given substantial latitude in this area of proof, which is admissible to show the circumstances confronting him, the extent of this apparent danger, and the motive by which he was influenced. (See People v. Stombaugh (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 130, 139, 284 N.E.2d 640, 645; People v. Robinson (1987), 163 Ill. App. 3d 754, 773, 516 N.E.2d 1292, 1306; People v. Hoddenbach (1983), 116 Ill. App. 3d 57, 60, 452 N.E.2d 32, 35; People v. Graves (1978), 61 Ill. App. 3d 732, 740, 378 N.E.2d 293, 299.) Such knowledge necessarily affects the defendant’s perceptions of and reactions to the victim’s behavior and are thus relevant to the reasonableness of the defendant’s self-defense force. People v. Robinson, 163 Ill. App. 3d at 773, 516 N.E.2d at 1306.

These principles are logically applicable to a situation where the victim and a third person are jointly acting as aggressors against the defendant’s relative, and the defendant claims that his use of force against the victim was in defense of that relative. As stated above, the law in Illinois is that the defendant stands in the shoes of the other against whom unlawful force is threatened and may take steps which the other could lawfully take in his own defense. There is also authority for permitting evidence of previous threats and the quarrelsome or violent disposition of a third party where that party and the victim are attacking the defendant, who claims to have acted in self-defense. (People v. Robinson (1987), 163 Ill. App. 3d 754, 773-74, 516 N.E.2d 1292, 1307; People v. Wood (1984), 129 Ill. App. 3d 29, 33, 471 N.E.2d 1060, 1062; People v. Buchanan (1980), 91 Ill. App. 3d 13, 16, 414 N.E.2d 262, 264-65.) In the case at bar, Officer Rowski was precluded from testifying fully as to whether W.D., in relating the facts and circumstances of the fight, stated that John Y. was armed with a bottle or threatened Robert D. with a bottle during the fight, or whether he had previously threatened him with a bottle. The witness was also precluded from testifying as to whether W.D. had stated that John V. had a gun. In light of the complete record, including Eric J.’s testimony indicating that John may have had a bottle in his hand during the fight, the testimony of two defense witnesses that John had, as little as five minutes before the fight, threatened Robert by holding a bottle over his head, and substantial testimony tending to show John’s role in instigating the fight and his quarrelsome nature, including Robert’s statement that John had returned later that same evening to ask him if “he wanted to play pistol play,” we believe that W.D.’s defense was prejudiced by the limitations placed upon his cross-examination of Officer Rowski relating to his admission. The testimony sought by defense counsel could hardly have been less remote or more relevant to the question of whether minor respondent was justifiably acting in defense of his cousin at the instant he decided to use the knife. Moreover, any testimony which may have been elicited which was favorable to W.D.’s defense would not have been merely cumulative of the testimony of others which indicated the level of danger faced by Robert D. Officer Rowski’s testimony alone was “state of mind” testimony which tended to show whether and how W.D.’s personal knowledge of his cousin’s attackers, and his own reported observations, affected his perceptions of and reactions to their behavior. (See People v. Lynch (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 194, 199-200, 470 N.E.2d 1018, 1020.) As the justification question was a close one on the facts, the precluded testimony reasonably could have affected the outcome. Minor respondent was entitled to have the trier of fact judge the reasonableness of his behavior in light of all relevant and admissible facts and circumstances. For these reasons, the limitations placed on the investigating officer’s testimony constituted reversible error.

Because we believe that minor respondent was denied an opportunity for an effective cross-examination of an important State’s witness, and because the error, under the particular facts of this case, was manifestly prejudicial to his defense, we find that he is entitled to a new trial on the three allegations in the delinquency petition, all of which arose out of the same act. In remanding this case, we observe that the trial court, in adjudicating minor respondent “delinquent as charged,” did not specify the count or counts upon which the finding of delinquency was based. While in a juvenile case this practice may not be prejudicial (see In re Stiff (1975), 32 Ill. App. 3d 971, 978-79, 336 N.E.2d 619, 625), we believe that the better practice, particularly in aid of the reviewing court, is for the trial judge to specify the charge or charges, of those alleged in the petition, upon which the finding of delinquency and the disposition are based.

The question of whether minor respondent’s act, which he committed beyond any dispute, was justified under all of the facts and circumstances is a question to be resolved by the trier of fact. While we are aware that this is a close case and that support could be found for either affirmance or reversal, we believe that, based on the record before us, reversal is required. Considering the circumstances of the altercation, the force threatened against a close relative, and the force used against the victim, we believe justice and fairness required a trial which permitted minor respondent to exercise the substantial latitude in cross-examination to which he was legally entitled. Accordingly, the finding of delinquency is reversed, and the adjudication of wardship and recommitment to the Department of Corrections based upon that finding are vacated.

This case is remanded to the circuit court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded -with directions.

LORENZ and MURRAY, JJ., concur.

      In order to protect the identity of minor respondent, first names and surname initials will be used throughout this opinion to designate the participants in these proceedings, with the exception of the attorneys and the investigating police officer.

      Public Act 85 — 601 repealed the Juvenile Court Act enacted in 1965 and adopted the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, effective January 1, 1988. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 801 — 1 et seq. (Pub. Act 85 — 601).) The prior act and its subsequent amendments are pertinent to this appeal because the petition was brought while the prior Act was still in effect.


author: JUSTICE GORDON

text:
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent-Appellee, v. PHILLIP KRASULA, Petitioner-Appellant.
    First District (5th Division)
    No. 1—88—0337
    Opinion filed February 16, 1990.
    Thomas C. Brandstrader, of Chicago, for appellant.
    Cecil A. Partee, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Inge Fryklund, William D. Carroll, and Mary Ellen Murphy, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
   JUSTICE GORDON

delivered the opinion of the court:

Petitioner, Phillip Krasula, filed a motion to dismiss the statutory summary suspension of his driving privileges. The trial court denied petitioner’s dismissal motion, and petitioner appeals, alleging that the trial court failed to comply with the statute when it did not conduct a hearing within 30 days of his request. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we affirm.

The record discloses that on November 21, 1987, petitioner was arrested and charged with the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 951/2, par. 11 — 501(a)(2).) The arresting officer immediately notified petitioner that his court date was January 7, 1988, and that his driving privileges would be suspended for a minimum of three months. The office of the Secretary of State sent confirmation of the three-month suspension and specified that it would become effective on January 6, 1988, the 46th day following his arrest.

On November 25, 1987, petitioner filed a petition requesting a hearing to rescind the statutory summary suspension of his driving privileges. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 951/2, par. 2 — 118.1.) The record discloses that on the petition to rescind, a printed form supplied by the clerk of the circuit court, petitioner typed the date of January 7, 1988, on a line providing for disclosure of court dates, and this typed date was the same as the date upon which petitioner was to first appear in court for his traffic violation. On January 7, 1988, petitioner appeared in court and moved to dismiss the statutory summary suspension on the ground that he had been denied due process of law when a rescission hearing was not held within 30 days after his request. The trial court denied the motion. Petitioner chose to stand on his motion to dismiss rather than to proceed with the hearing.

Petitioner contends that the statute compels the trial court to conduct a hearing within 30 days of a request. He asserts that the trial court’s failure to conduct such a hearing within the 30-day period deprived him of due process of law. Conversely, the State argues that the trial court complied with the statute where it would have conducted a hearing on petitioner’s first appearance date.

The pertinent statutory provision is section 2 — 118.1(b) of the Illinois Vehicle Code, and it provides:

“Upon the notice of statutory summary suspension served under section 11 — 501.1, the person may make a written request for a judicial hearing in the circuit court of venue. *** Within 30 days after receipt of the written request or the first appearance date on the Uniform Traffic Ticket issued pursuant to a violation of Section 11-501, or a similar provision of a local ordinance, the hearing shall be conducted by the circuit court having jurisdiction. This judicial hearing, request or process shall not stay or delay the statutory suspension.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95V2, par. 2-118.1(b).

Thus, the statute provides for two alternate dates in which rescission hearings can be conducted, either within 30 days after receipt of the written request or the first appearance date on the uniform traffic ticket.

Petitioner would have us believe that in In re Summary Suspension of Driver’s License of Trainor (1987), 156 Ill. App. 3d 918, 510 N.E.2d 614, the court effectively eliminated the second alternate date. However, the second alternate date in the statute was not addressed by the Trainor court, undoubtedly since the hearing in Trainor was held well after petitioner’s first appearance date: 88 days after arrest, and more than 56 days after a new judge was substituted. Moreover, the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Gerke (1988), 123 Ill. 2d 85, 525 N.E.2d 68, approved of the statutory validity and constitutionality of the second alternate date in the statute, notwithstanding the lapse of more than 30 days, when it held that a three-day, post-suspension delay of a hearing held on the second alternate date was not nearly long enough to violate due process. (Gerke, 123 Ill. 2d at 92, 525 N.E.2d at 71.) In the instant case, the hearing date of January 7 would have fallen only one day after commencement of the suspension.

More recently, the supreme court’s holding in Gerke was applied in People v. Webb (1989), 182 Ill. App. 3d 908, 538 N.E.2d 744, when the court interpreted section 2 — 118.1(b) and held that due process was not violated when a hearing took place within either of the alternate time periods. The Webb court noted that the section 2 — 118.1(b) time frames were not to be viewed as exclusive, but rather, as legislative alternatives designed to afford proper due process to a motorist facing the deprivation of his driving privileges. Webb, 182 Ill. App. 3d at 913, 538 N.E.2d at 747.

Therefore, we conclude that even though this hearing date fell more than 30 days after petitioner’s request, it conformed with the alternate time provision set forth in the statute. Because of our ruling, we need not resolve whether petitioner waived his request to an earlier hearing date and elected to be heard on the date of his first scheduled court appearance when he disclosed that date on his petition form.

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the circuit court of Cook County denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss.

Affirmed.

COCCIA, P.J., and MURRAY, J., concur.