Opinion ID: 2015103
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Venue: Robbery of Automobile

Text: Defendant next claims that venue on the charge of robbery of the victim's car properly lay in Cook County and not in Jefferson County. Defendant notes that, generally, [c]riminal actions shall be tried in the county where the offense was committed, except as otherwise provided by law. 720 ILCS 5/1-6(a) (West 1992). Defendant contends that the offense of robbery of the victim's car was completed in Chicago, where he forced her into her car, forced her to drive to a parking area at the Foster Avenue beach, and then forced her into the car's trunk. Defendant asks this court to reverse his conviction of robbery of the victim's car. We disagree and hold that defendant was properly tried for robbery of the victim's car in Jefferson County. We reach this conclusion after comparing the offense of theft and its accompanying venue rule with the robbery that was committed in this case. A person commits theft when he or she knowingly: obtains or exerts unauthorized control over property of the owner, obtains control over such property by deception or by threat, or obtains control of property which he or she knows to be stolen; and intends to keep the property from its owner. 720 ILCS 5/16-1(a) (West 1992). A person commits robbery when he or she takes property from the person or presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force. 720 ILCS 5/18-1(a) (West 1992). Theft requires knowledge that the taking is unauthorized and an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the use or benefit of the property. However, robbery does not require a similar showing of intent. The essence of theft is an intended taking of property, while the essence of robbery is the use of force in the taking of the property, regardless of intent. People v. McCarty, 94 Ill.2d 28, 33, 67 Ill.Dec. 818, 445 N.E.2d 298 (1983). Thus, if no force or threat of imminent force is used in the taking, there is no robbery, although the act may constitute a theft. People v. Patton, 76 Ill.2d 45, 48, 27 Ill.Dec. 766, 389 N.E.2d 1174 (1979). Turning to venue, a person who commits theft of property may be tried in any county in which he or she exerted control over such property. 720 ILCS 5/1-6(g) (West 1992). The venue rule for theft accords with the common law. Courts have long reasoned that where property is intentionally taken from one county to another county, or through several counties, the defendant commits a new taking. In other words, the defendant continues the essence of the crime, i.e., the intentional taking. The defendant continues to be as guilty of theft in the subsequent county as when and where the property was first taken. People v. Devore, 402 Ill. 336, 337-38, 83 N.E.2d 728 (1949). This reasoning applies in this case. Of course, the offense of robbery is complete when force or threat of force causes the victim to part with possession or custody of property against the victim's will. People v. Smith, 78 Ill.2d 298, 303, 35 Ill.Dec. 761, 399 N.E.2d 1289 (1980). Thus, defendant's robbery of the victim's car was completed in Cook County, in the alley behind the victim's home when he forced her into the car to drive him away. However, defendant's taking of the victim's car, with the victim forced in the car trunk, continued the essence of the robbery, i.e., the use of force. We note that other states commonly include robbery in their venue rules for theft. See 1 C. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Procedure § 39 (13th ed. 1989). Defendant continued to be as guilty of robbery in the field in Jefferson County as when the robbery occurred in Cook County. Therefore, we hold that defendant was properly tried in Jefferson County for the robbery of the victim's car.