People v. Secor

23 Citing cases

  1. People v. Reynolds

    294 Ill. App. 3d 58 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 21 times
    Stating that determination of whether accused held a position of trust, authority or supervision in relation to the minor victim under Illinois statute was question of fact for jury when “more than one inference may be drawn [from the evidence].”

    Accordingly, Illinois courts construing section 12-13(a)(4) have given the terms "trust," "authority" and "supervision" their common dictionary meanings. See People v. Secor, 279 Ill. App.3d 389, 396, 664 N.E.2d 1054 (1996); People v. Kaminski, 246 Ill. App.3d 77, 81, 615 N.E.2d 808 (1993). In People v. Kaminski, the court stated that "supervise" has been defined to mean "`superintend, oversee.'"

  2. People v. Jasper

    2017 Ill. App. 3d 140356 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    People v. Jamison, 229 Ill. 2d 184, 188 (2008). Courts construing section 12-13(a)(4) have given these terms their common dictionary meanings. People v. Secor, 279 Ill. App. 3d 389, 396 (1996). The ordinary meaning of the word "trust" is "a confident dependence on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone."

  3. People  v. Rebecca

    2012 Ill. App. 2d 91259 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 5 times
    Stating that “[w]hether a ‘position of trust’ exists is a question of fact for the jury to decide” and concluding that deficiencies in indictment coupled with evidence at trial could have led jury to find that defendant did not hold position of trust in relation to minor victims

    On September 14, the court heard the motion and defendant argued that the State presented evidence on the other victims on the issue of trust, authority, or supervision but did not present specific information as to R.C.'s relationship with defendant. The State responded that it presented information as to R.C. spending many nights with defendant in defendant's home and under his care and that such evidence was sufficient to establish the position under People v. Secor, 279 Ill.App.3d 389, 216 Ill.Dec. 126, 664 N.E.2d 1054 (1996). The court denied the motion, finding that the State was not required to prove each element before the grand jury.

  4. People v. Grocesley

    384 Ill. App. 3d 682 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 3 times

    The statute does not define the term trust, authority or supervision. This court, however, has previously stated that these words are presumed to have their ordinary and popularly understood meanings People v. Secor, 279 Ill. App. 3d 389, 664 N.E.2d 1054 (1996). "It is evident that, in enacting section 12-13(a)(4), the legislature sought to prevent sex offenses by those whom a child would tend to obey, such as a teacher or coach, as well as those in whom the child has placed his trust ***."

  5. People v. Grano

    286 Ill. App. 3d 278 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 24 times
    In People v. Grano, 286 Ill.App.3d 278, 281, 293 (1996), the State charged the defendant, who owned a karate school and was the head instructor, with violating the "supervision" prong of the statutory predecessor to section 11-1.20(a)(4) of the Code.

    We must therefore consider whether the statute is capable of any valid application. In People v. Secor, 279 Ill. App.3d 389 (1996), the Appellate Court, Third District, faced a similar challenge to the general constitutionality of section 12-13(a)(4) on vagueness grounds. It found the application of the statute to be unquestioned in circumstances such as those involving baby sitters, teachers, day-care workers, priests and ministers, scout leaders and a host of other positions of trust, authority or supervision.

  6. People v. Miki

    2020 Ill. App. 2d 190862 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 5 times

    The term "trust" is interpreted to mean confidence in the integrity, ability, character, and truth of a person. People v. Secor, 279 Ill. App. 3d 389, 396 (1996). In using the word "trust," the legislature intended to prevent sex offenses by those in whom a child would place her trust.

  7. People v. Neeley

    2013 Ill. App. 4th 120570 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)

    Thus, defendant was not a stranger to J.B.; rather, he had been in J.B.'s home "often" and J.B. knew defendant as someone with whom her mother had a dating relationship. ¶ 32 Moreover, on the night of the incident, defendant, a 48-year-old, transported 14-year-old J.B. to his home, from which J.B. had no means of leaving. Indeed, after the assault, J.B. called her mother asking to come home, demonstrating J.B. lacked the ability to leave on her own. In People v. Secor, 279 Ill. App. 3d 389, 396, 664 N.E.2d 1054, 1059 (1996), the Third District rejected the defendant's claim that section 12-13(a)(4) was ambiguous, finding it was evident that "the legislature sought to prevent sex offenses by those whom a child would tend toobey, such as a teacher or coach, as well as those in whom the child has placed his trust[.]" (Emphasis added.)

  8. People v. Breshears

    2023 Ill. App. 4th 220947 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    ¶ 34 "When presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant question on review is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Secor, 279 Ill.App.3d 389, 394 (1996). We may not substitute our judgment for the jury's judgment on matters pertaining to weighing evidence or determining witness credibility.

  9. People v. Carter

    2022 Ill. App. 210261 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 6 times

    'Supervise' or 'supervision' means '[t]o direct and inspect the performance of' [citation]; the act of overseeing or inspection [citation]; to superintend or oversee [citation]." Peoplev. Secor, 279 Ill.App.3d 389, 396 (1996).

  10. Nelson v. State

    2011 Ark. 429 (Ark. 2011)   Cited 18 times
    In Nelson v. State, 2011 Ark. 429, in a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Hannah referred the rape-shield statute to the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Criminal Practice for possible adoption as a rule of evidence.

    On appeal, Murphy and Ray challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions, which required the State to prove their status as temporary caretakers or persons in a position of trust or authority of the victim. The court of appeals cited with approval People v. Secor [279 Ill.App.3d 389, 216 Ill.Dec. 126], 664 N.E.2d 1054 (Ill.App.1996), for the definition of a person in a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim, and stated: In Secor, the court affirmed a conviction of sexual assault against a fourteen-year-old victim who was spending the night with the appellant's son in their home.