Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. D.P.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided August 30, 1996No. 5—94—0861Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Welch

I respectfully dissent. In close cases, it is not the function of this court to substitute its interpretation of the evidence for that of the trial court, which is in a far superior position to evaluate. Sohaey v. Van Cura, 240 Ill. App. 3d 266, 293, 607 N.E.2d 253 (1992).

The majority gives two possible reasons why it believes the trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment: (1) because the trial court relied on the fact that no one testified that the father’s method of waking his daughter was for the purpose of his sexual arousal; and (2) because the trial court felt it was…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Sohaey v. Van CuraAppellate Court of Illinois · 1992
  2. People v. GoebelAppellate Court of Illinois · 1987
  3. In Re Estate of FriedmanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1984
  4. In re J.H.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1987
  5. People v. KelchnerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API