Opinion ID: 2249712
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Flight and Opportunity

Text: In further support of its argument that the evidence was sufficient to convict, the State points out that, in addition to the shoeprint evidence, there was evidence of flight, as well as evidence that defendant had opportunity to commit the burglary. At oral argument, defendant argued to the effect that such evidence was weak. While flight by itself is not sufficient to establish guilt, it may be a circumstance to be considered with other factors tending to establish guilt. ( People v. Brown (1963), 27 Ill.2d 23, 26, 187 N.E.2d 728; People v. Harris (1972), 52 Ill.2d 558, 561, 288 N.E.2d 385; 1 C. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Evidence § 214, at 449 (13th ed. 1972).) This evidence, along with the shoeprint evidence and evidence of opportunity, could properly have been considered as tending to establish defendant as the perpetrator of the charged offense. Again, we note that the weight to be given all the evidence was for the trier of fact to determine.