Court Opinion

ID: 9706758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:51:03.441501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:24.809649
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER, dissenting: Consistent with my view as discussed in my dissenting opinion in People v. Minish, 19 Ill.App.3d 603, filed May 20, 1974, I believe the entire circumstantial evidence instruction should have been given and the failure to do so requires a new trial in this case. I see no reason for repeating my observations in my dissenting opinion in the Minish case although I believe them to be equaHy applicable to the basic issue of this case. This case iUustrates and supports my view that there is nothing in the nature of circumstantial evidence which suggests that a particular instruction should be given only if all of the evidence is circumstantial. Concededly, in this case the only disputed issue is the intent of the defendant and the only evidence relevant to such disputed issue is circumstantial. This is true of the evidence tending to show defendant’s intention to permanently deprive the bank of its property as well as the evidence tending to show the defendant had no such intention. Whether the requisite intent is or is not proved by the circumstantial evidence is measured by the same standard that would be applicable if aU the evidence were circumstantial and the jury should have been so instructed. If the jury had been properly instructed I believe there is sufficient evidence, although conflicting, which would support the conviction of the defendant if the conflicts in such evidence were resolved in favor of the prosecution.