Opinion ID: 1750758
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Gregory Hornburger

Text: The defendant testified that he had been living in Jonestown for five years, prior to which he had lived in Chicago. He stated that he had worked on a farm for about two years, and had also worked at a mill and a chemical plant. Hornburger testified that he had served time for a 1983 conviction for armed robbery. Hornburger testified that on July 27, 1991, he had been driving on Main Street in Jonestown. He encountered Lucas, who stopped him and asked if he would take him to his father's shop and pull his car to Tolliver's salvage yard. When the two arrived at the Lucas shop, they discovered that they could not pull the car, because it had two flat tires. Lucas then stated that he would get two tool boxes and sell them; that belonged to him. Hornburger stated that Lucas then went in the back door of the building, and brought out two tool boxes, large and small. Hornburger then stated that he had seen Lucas go in a single door on the side of the shop. Hornburger testified that Lucas got the tools out, and that both of them put them in the car. Lucas told him that these were his tools, which he got from mechanics school. The two then went to Tolliver and sold one tool box. Lucas then asked Hornburger if he knew anybody who would by the other box, and Hornburger suggested John Harris. They went to Harris and sold him the box; Hornburger testified that he had negotiated with Harris because Harris asked him what he thought about the box. [5] Lucas then asked Hornburger if he would get the compressor and other items, and Hornburger told Lucas he would have to pay him (Hornburger) to go back. Lucas had already paid him ten dollars to get the tool boxes. Lucas in fact paid Hornburger ten more dollars to go back and get the compressor. Hornburger stated that they retrieved the compressor from under a shed at the auto shop. Hornburger testified that Lucas told him his father had moved to Texas and left him in charge of the items. Hornburger denied buying or using drugs. Lucas asked Hornburger if he knew anyone who would want the compressor, and Hornburger did not; Hornburger said that he would like to have it, but he didn't have any money. Lucas told Hornburger to hold the compressor for him, and the two put it in Hornburger's grandmother's backyard. Hornburger stated that he covered the stuff with plastic, and left it behind a tree. Hornburger testified that Lucas said he was going to sell the stuff. Hornburger stated that he believed all the possessions to belong to Lucas, because Lucas had swore on the Bible and hoped that God would strike him down that he wasn't lying, that it was his. Hornburger said he was convinced because he never knew (Lucas) to take nothing, and would never have thought that he would take it from his father anyway. Hornburger testified that about three days later, Mr. Gilliam came to see him, stating that Lucas had taken some items from his father's shop. Hornburger denied any knowledge at that time, because he wanted to try to find out what happened. Hornburger then moved the items from the backyard to back towards Rich, down in the weeds, because he didn't want to be involved in something (Lucas) had done that wasn't right. Hornburger went to Gilliam and told him he would take him to the stuff. Hornburger then put the stuff in his car and brought it to Gilliam's house. [6] Hornburger testified that he did not have anything to do with pulling back the door to the shop. He stated that when he saw the door, it was not bent. Hornburger stated that it had not taken Lucas long to get in the shop, that it seemed like a normal person walked in with keys and walked out. Hornburger further testified that he never knew or suspected that the equipment taken from the shop was stolen, or that Lucas should not have had possession of it. Hornburger's lawyer voiced an objection to instruction S-8, which stated: The Court instructs the Jury that each person present at the time, and consenting to and encouraging the commission of a crime, and knowingly, willfully and feloniously doing any act which is an element of the crime or immediately connected with it, or leading to its commission, is as much a principal as if he had with his own hand committed the whole offense; and if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Gregory Hornburger, a/k/a Greg Hornburger, did willfully, knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously do any act which is an element of the crime of burglary of a building, or leading to its commission, then and in that event, you should find the defendant guilty as charged. Hornburger's lawyer explained his objection: The first part of it before the semi-colon instructs what  it says any person consenting to and encouraging the commission of a crime is guilty as principal. Then it says, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant unlawfully and willfully did any act which is an element of the crime of burglary or leading to its commission, then you should find the defendant guilty as charged. I think we should have in there something to the effect, if you find that he was present at the time or consented to, encouraged, and committed some act which is an element, then you can find him guilty. The way it's broken up, it sounds like this is what an accomplice is, but then under that it ways if you find him just guilty of one or find one element proven, then you can find him guilty of burglary without finding that he is an accomplice. Or an aider and abettor, I guess. Hornburger's lawyer further stated that under the instruction, the jury is not required to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he aided and abetted. He stated: My problem is after the semi-colon, where the Court is instructing the jury, it basically says if you find he did any act which is an element of the crime of burglary, you shall find him guilty as charged. It doesn't say anything about you have to find he aided or abetted somebody. The court declined to strike or alter instruction S-8. [7] The jury returned a guilty verdict, and judgment was entered February 17, 1992. Hornburger was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, and ordered to make restitution. Hornburger filed a motion for a new trial on February 18, 1992, which was denied on February 18, 1992. Hornburger filed his appeal to this Court on February 19, 1992.