Court Opinion

ID: 9740578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:37:52.853258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:19.008364
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, specially concurring: 1 agree with the result reached but not with everything stated in the opinion. In my opinion, the alleged defense regarding sufficiency of the proof by stipulation was waived because it was not raised in the trial court. The only defense raised at trial was a complete denial by defendant. Thus the contention regarding the stipulation may not be raised for the first time in this cotut. People v. Morris, 6 Ill.App.3d 136, 139, 285 N.E.2d 247, and authorities there cited. Even if this alleged error be considered, affirmance of the judgment must result because “[a] stipulation is to be given its natural and ordinary meaning ” * We may not so interpret the stipulation as to “do violence to its plain meaning.” (People v. Joe, 31 Ill.2d 220, 226, 201 N.E.2d 416.) In my opinion it appears from this record that the parties at trial intended by this stipulation to obviate the need for the very proof which defendant now contends is lacking. In any event, two recently decided cases in this court govern the disposition of this appeal. Both cases reject the identical contention regarding the need of specific proof of corporate existence of the owner of stolen property. (See People v. Sims, 29 Ill.App.3d 815, 331 N.E.2d 178, involving “Jewel Food Store”. Also People v. Austin, 25 Ill.App.3d 174, 323 N.E.2d 128 (abstract opinion), involving “Marshall Field and Company." No other authority is required for disposition of the appeal by affirmance.