People v. Kunce

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Brown

    2013 IL 114196 (Ill. 2013)   Cited 724 times
    Holding the State always has the burden of proving all of the elements of the offense

    Moreover, it is well established that the intent to defraud may be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction. People v. Bailey, 15 Ill.2d 18, 23–24, 153 N.E.2d 584 (1958); People v. Kunce, 196 Ill.App.3d 388, 391, 143 Ill.Dec. 92, 553 N.E.2d 799 (1990). ¶ 73 In the present case, there is no question that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to show that defendant had an intent to defraud in connection with the forged check.

  2. Alvarez v. Williams

    2014 Ill. App. 133443 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Alvarez v. Williams, 2014 IL App (1st) 133443, 387 Ill.Dec. 852, 23 N.E.3d 544, we determined that petitioner's prior conviction for aiding and abetting a forgery constituted an infamous crime, which made him ineligible to hold the office of a school board member.

    Thus, through the application of the common criminal design rule, defendant's conviction for aiding, inducing, or causing the offense of forgery is considered an infamous crime under section 124-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See People v. Kunce, 196 Ill. App. 3d 388, 390-91 (1990) (where the defendant was convicted of forgery under the accountability theory). Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that the legislature intended the School Code and Election Code to exclude individuals convicted of infamous crimes from eligibility to hold the office of a school board member, and thus, defendant was not statutorily eligible.