Court Opinion

ID: 9521101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:57:06.333173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:39.993576
License: Public Domain

BURMAN, J, dissenting: In my opinion there is insufficient evidence to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of attempted theft. The record discloses that this defendant was first formally accused of the charge of attempted armed robbery and attempted strong arm robbery. At a preliminary hearing the court proceeded to examine the witnesses on those charges. After the two police officers testified and the State rested their case the defendant’s counsel moved that the defendant be discharged inasmuch as the State’s evidence revealed that a search of the defendant, at the time of the occurrence, showed that the defendant had no weapons of any kind and no physical force was attempted by the defendant. The State then dropped the felony charges and by leave of court an information was filed without objection reducing the charge to a misdemeanor. It was stipulated that the testimony of the state’s witnesses would be the same. The formal information was signed by officer Joseph Lorenz which charged the defendant with “intent to commit the offense of theft attempted to obtain unauthorized control over $10 U. S. C., the property of Joseph J. Lorenz, intending to deprive the said Joseph J. Lorenz permanently of the use and benefit of said property.” I believe it is only a reasonable inference altbongb tbe record is silent on tbis point tbat Officer Lorenz signed the original formal felony charge knowing full well tbat after be searched tbe defendant, who was never ont of bis sight be fonnd no weapons of any kind on bis person and tbat tbe defendant made no attempt of strong arm tactics. Tbe defendant, a 20-year-old male, living with bis parents, bad never been arrested before. He is a waiter at the Michael Eeese Hospital and a student at tbe Cregar School of Nursing. On tbe night in question be completed work at 8:00 p. m. and went to tbe home of a friend at 63rd and Prairie. He left bis friend’s home about 1:00 a. m. and was proceeding to tbe home of another friend at 66th and Greenwood. As be approached tbe corner of 64th and Cottage Grove be bad a cigarette in bis band and when be noticed a man lighting bis cigarette be asked him for a light. Tbis man dressed in tbe typical poor clothes of tbe neighborhood and pretending to be inebriated was Officer Joseph Lorenz of tbe Task Force Undercover Unit of tbe Chicago Police Department. Officer Lorenz and bis partner, Officer Gomez, at great personal risk, were engaged in an operation whereby Lorenz, acting as a, decoy attempted to place himself in tbe role of a victim for strong arm robbers who were known to be operating in tbe area. Tbe defendant and Officer Lorenz proceeded to walk several blocks together during which time a friendly coversation took place; tbat Officer Lorenz testified they discussed race relations and tbe defendant told him be was going to a school of nursing. As they walked, tbe defendant noticed a stranger sitting on tbe steps of a building. Tbe stranger got off tbe steps, went past them, ducked out of sight and later appeared behind them again and again passed them. Tbis stranger was Officer Gomez. When they reached 66th and Woodlawn and less than a half block from the defendant’s destination at his friend’s home, Lorenz said that he was going to visit an acquaintance who lived nearby and proceeded to enter an alley. In response to the questions by the State on cross-examination as to why defendant found it necessary to accompany Lorenz into the alley, he answered, “Because I felt that perhaps he wasn’t able to find his friend. . . the reason, you see, the schooling which I represent doesn’t teach us that this is something which is just present in the hospital; this is something that is carried out throughout humanity. Being a nurse, you have to go through quite a bit. For me to use nursing just in the hospital is not the type of nursing that is best for humanity. I would use it here in the courtroom if necessary.” The defendant admits making the statement, “Put your hands up and keep your hands up or I will blow your brains out.” His explanation is a simple one and considering the evidence as a whole rings true. “As we went around to this lot he said, the officer here said, Lorenz — he said that he was going up to a friend’s house whose name was Jesssie with whom he worked on the job. “He said that he was a good friend of colored people ; he indicated that he had many. “I said that I would help him find the fellow. “As we proceeded in the lot, there were two cars. One was parked on the east side of the lot and the other was on the west side of the lot and pretty close was the stairway leading up to the house. “The car was parked close behind with approximately 2 feet distance between the front of the cars. “So as we got into the lot, this here officer was on the front of the car. Officer Gromez, he was in front of the car at the west side. On the west side of the automobile, he was in front. “So lie started to ease, but by tbe time he was easing up I seen him easing up. So it was the first time that it made me nervous — thinking these here two men were perhaps trying to molest me or something. They were both strangers. “So I went into my pocket and said, Stick your hands up, or else I will blow your brains out.” The defendant’s actions were admittedly rash, but are they sufficient to prove an intent to rob in a criminal case? The oft quoted presumption in favor of innocence must be afforded the defendant. When the evidence is carefully analyzed all we have in the case at bar is suspicious behavior by the defendant and mere probabilities which will not support the conviction. The People v. Jackson, 23 Ill2d 360, 178 NE2d 320. The defendant never made a demand for money nor used force or violence. An attempt to commit a crime exists where a person, with intent to commit a specific offense, performs acts which constitute substantial steps towards the commission of that offense. The People v. Woods, 24 Ill2d 154, 180 NE2d 475. It is my opinion that neither any substantial steps nor the requisite specific intent to commit the crime of theft has been proven. We are reluctant to disturb the finding of a Municipal Court, but it is our duty to reverse if the evidence is insufficient to remove all reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt. The People v. White, 26 Ill2d 199, 186 NE2d 351. The finding of the Municipal Court should be reversed.