Opinion ID: 2066016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence to prove armed robbery

Text: The elements of armed robbery are the taking of property from the person or presence of another by the use of force while armed with a dangerous weapon. (Ill.Rev. Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 18-2.) Depriving the victim of property is thus a critical element to the crime of robbery. ( People v. Robinson (1981), 92 Ill.App.3d 397, 398, 48 Ill.Dec. 170, 416 N.E.2d 65.) Defendant claims that his armed robbery convictions should be reversed because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any property was taken from the victims' apartment. With regard to the evidence proving defendant guilty of armed robbery, the record indicates as follows. Detective Rochowicz testified that in his inspection of the victims' apartment, he found a woman's large satchel-type purse on the kitchen table. The purse was wide open and all of the contents, including a wallet with identification, had been taken out of the purse. The detective testified that everything from the purse had been tossed and turned out onto the table in disarray. The officer stated that only change, but no paper currency, was found at the scene. In addition, the detective stated that one of the victims (Williams) was found with a black purse wrapped around her neck. Clothes and other items that had been stored in dressers in the bedrooms were pulled from the furniture and tossed about the rooms, in complete disarray. Defendant notes that the State introduced no direct evidence that the victims were in possession of paper money before they were assaulted by the defendant. In an appeal from a conviction for armed robbery, it is not our function to reweigh the evidence or retry the defendant; rather, it is the role of the finder of fact to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony, as well as the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Our duty is a more limited one: to determine whether all of the evidence, direct and circumstantial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, would cause a rational fact finder to conclude that the essential elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. We must not set aside the conviction unless the evidence is so unsatisfactory or improbable that it leaves a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. People v. Burrows (1992), 148 Ill.2d 196, 224-25, 170 Ill.Dec. 317, 592 N.E.2d 997, quoting Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560. It is well established that the elements of armed robbery may be proved by circumstantial evidence. ( People v. Williams (1987), 118 Ill.2d 407, 415, 113 Ill.Dec. 923, 515 N.E.2d 1230.) A defendant's taking of property may be inferred from the circumstance that money or property is no longer in the place where it is habitually placed. See, e.g., People v. Jett (1935), 361 Ill. 373, 375, 198 N.E. 143 (evidence that money was missing from cash register after incident); People v. Susanec (1947), 398 Ill. 507, 512-13, 76 N.E.2d 33 (watch missing after incident); People v. Morando (1988), 169 Ill.App.3d 716, 724-25, 120 Ill.Dec. 150, 523 N.E.2d 1061 (testimony established that victim had been seen wearing ring earlier in day, but that ring was missing immediately after victim's death); People v. Generally (1988), 170 Ill. App.3d 668, 672-73, 121 Ill.Dec. 300, 525 N.E.2d 106 ([s]urely defendant did not leave the money there when his purpose for approaching the victim in the first place was to rob him and the absence of the money, albeit circumstantial, clearly supports the jury's verdict); People v. Whitley (1974), 18 Ill.App.3d 995, 999, 311 N.E.2d 282 (circumstance that victim testified he had placed money in pants pocket, and that he discovered money was missing after defendants left the room; [a]bsent a credible accounting for the missing money, the reasonable inference drawn from the[se]    circumstances supports the jury's conclusion that the defendants had taken the money); People v. Lee (1991), 222 Ill.App.3d 436, 441-42, 165 Ill. Dec. 6, 584 N.E.2d 185 (defendant demanded to know location of victim's purse; purse later missing); State v. Olson (1930), 87 Mont. 389, 287 P. 938 (evidence sufficient to prove armed robbery where victim's vest pocket torn and it was established that victim carried his wallet in this pocket). Under the facts of the present case, we conclude that it was not unreasonable for the jury to infer that the victims had been in possession of money, whether paper or coin currency, which was no longer found at the scene and had been taken by the defendant during the course of a robbery. The evidence in the present case showed that the victims had been in possession of some amount of cash, whether paper currency or coin. In fact, when police arrived at the scene, they found money, in the form of coins, still left at the apartment. A purse was found on the kitchen table. All of the contents of the purse had been tossed and turned onto the table. Another purse was found tied around a victim's neck. The overall condition of the apartment indicated that it had been ransacked. No paper currency was left in any of the women's purses, nor in any other place in the apartment. Based upon the presence of coin money in the apartment, the condition of the women's purses and their other belongings, the state of the apartment, and the defendant's statement that he and Battles had gone to the apartment in order to rob the victims, we believe that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find all of the essential elements of armed robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant relies upon People v. Taylor (1984), 101 Ill.2d 508, 79 Ill.Dec. 151, 463 N.E.2d 705, to support his argument that there was insufficient evidence to prove him guilty of armed robbery. In Taylor, this court found insufficient the State's circumstantial evidence that the defendant had committed an armed robbery. An eyewitness testified that he had seen the defendant bend over the victim's body, but could not say with certainty whether the defendant had taken anything from the victim's person. In addition, although it was established that the victim normally wore a watch and had cashed his paycheck earlier during the day, it was also proven that the victim had been drinking and had become intoxicated before he was assaulted by the defendant. Defendant suggested that because of his intoxication, the victim could have spent all of his money earlier that day and given away or lost his watch and wallet. ( Taylor, 101 Ill.2d at 514-15, 79 Ill.Dec. 151, 463 N.E.2d 705.) This court determined that the evidence was inconclusive that a robbery was committed, because there was no evidence that the deceased was possessed of money or a watch before he was accosted by the defendant, and the testimony of [the eyewitness] offer[ed] little support for the theory that anything was taken from [the victim]. Taylor, 101 Ill.2d at 515, 79 Ill.Dec. 151, 463 N.E.2d 705. We believe that the facts of the instant cause are distinguishable from Taylor. Unlike the accused in that case, the defendant here admitted that he and Battles went to the victims' apartment in order to take money from the victims. In addition, the condition of the scene and the victims' bodies once they were found by authorities were such as to raise a reasonable inference that the victims had been robbed. Also, unlike the present case, other reported decisions have hinged upon the fact that there was some proof that the defendant had not deprived the victim of possession of any money or other property (see People v. Triplett (1985), 138 Ill.App.3d 1070, 1073-74, 93 Ill.Dec. 595, 487 N.E.2d 39 (victim testified that defendant took nothing from her); People v. Gaines (1981), 88 Ill.2d 342, 368, 58 Ill.Dec. 795, 430 N.E.2d 1046 (evidence showed that only one victim gave up property to defendant); see also People v. Robinson (1981), 92 Ill.App.3d 397, 399, 48 Ill.Dec. 170, 416 N.E.2d 65 (no testimony that defendant took property from two of the several victims at the scene); People v. McHerron (1983), 117 Ill.App.3d 1022, 1025-26, 73 Ill.Dec. 471, 454 N.E.2d 331 (no testimony that defendant took property from all of the victims at the scene)) and many pertained to offenses that did not take place in a residence (see Taylor, 101 Ill.2d 508, 79 Ill.Dec. 151, 463 N.E.2d 705; People v. Ohle (1951), 408 Ill. 238, 242-43, 96 N.E.2d 476; People v. Parker (1989), 192 Ill.App.3d 779, 786-87, 139 Ill.Dec. 900, 549 N.E.2d 626). In contrast, the instant offenses took place in a private dwelling, and the condition of the victims and their belongings provided strong circumstantial evidence that they had been robbed. In light of all of these considerations, we find defendant's contention insufficient basis to reverse his armed robbery convictions.