Court Opinion

ID: 9520037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:29:47.99539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:27.721328
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE BARRY, dissenting: This appeal involves a series of facts which the majority opinion concludes is sufficient to prove defendant Murphy guilty of felony theft beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not agree with that conclusion. I will not repeat the entire chronology of events, but will only stress the facts which are inconsistent with guilt and require a reversal of defendant’s conviction. Firstly, I agree with the result of the majority opinion that sufficient evidence was presented to show that some uncertain amount of cash was removed from the A & P store cash register in an unlawful manner. I disagree that the evidence supports a verdict that the defendant is guilty of theft of that uncertain amount of cash. The majority correctiy states that defendant’s reports of a robbery to the police, though intended to be exculpatory, are admissions which can not alone be sufficient to prove that a crime was committed and defendant committed it. But the other evidence in the record does not corroborate or substantiate that defendant committed the theft. To be specific, the testimony of witnesses other than the defendant clearly indicated that a man fitting defendant’s description of the robber had been in the store earlier the same evening. That man, Leon Ross, was known by Michael Graves, another A & P store employee present in the store. Michael Graves testified to Leon Ross being in the store earlier and had obtained some boxes from him. Such evidence is not contradictory of defendant’s statements to the police that Ross had been in the store twice that evening, but indeed is corroborative. The majority opinion relies heavily upon testimony of store employees Michael Graves and Ulysses Hudson, that they did not hear the automatic doors open or the ringing of the cash register after they returned from lunch break and before defendant reported the robbery, to support characterization of defendant’s report as fabricated. However their testimony was that neither initially could recall if music was playing over the store intercom system, which was customary, and Graves admitted, upon refreshing his recollection with his prior written statement given to the police, that the music was playing. Therefore it is logical to assume that they would not have been able to hear the automatic doors open or the ringing of the cash register, given the added fact that neither Graves or Hudson was in near proximity to the front area of the store or the cash register. They testified they were in the rear of the store, it would appear at least 150 feet from where the robbery was alleged to have taken place. Pursuant to People’s exhibit 12, the store measúres 100 feet wide and 200 feet long from front to rear with many shelves and stacks of groceries to restrict view, and • muffle the sound. The physical position of Graves and Hudson and the fact that music was playing more than adequately explains both witnesses inability to hear the doors open or the cash register bell. Equally unconvincing is the majority’s reliance upon the denominations of the bills taken and the debts of the defendant Murphy. Only $105 was found in defendant’s wallet. Of that there were five *20 bills and a *5 bill. This amount is considerably less than the projected amount missing. Clearly it is not unusual or incriminating to possess that amount of money in one’s wallet in those denominations. The debts of defendant are also not supportive of defendant’s guilt, and his financial position and debts, which may supply a motive, do not coincide with the alleged amount of money missing from the cash register. Also it should be pointed out that although Graves testified that defendant placed an open box of cleaning pads which defendant purchased in the trunk of defendant’s car at lunch break, no search of the car trunk was ordered. A search warrant was not obtained nor was a search made incident to defendant’s arrest. Defendant did refuse to consent to a search of his auto trunk. Such is his constitutional right and that by itself should carry no adverse inferences. Defendant’s refusal to consent to the immediate search of his auto trunk was qualified, however, by his agreement to allow a search of it if he were allowed to take the car home and remove a C.B. radio for which he had no receipt. I perceive the proper test in a case such as this to be whether the whole evidence proves the fact that the crime was committed and that the defendant committed it. (People v. Brown (1942), 379 Ill. 262, 40 N.E.2d 66.) I believe this test has not been met; that the proof failed to establish that defendant committed the theft. (People v. Toolate (4th Dist. 1976), 45 Ill. App. 3d 567, 359 N.E.2d 1062; People v. McCarty (4th Dist. 1976), 41 Ill. App. 3d 213, 354 N.E.2d 74.) It is true that inferences to be drawn from the evidence are within the province of the trier of fact, but a reviewing court may not accept such inferences where unquestionably a reasonable doubt lingers as to the guilt of the defendant. (People v. Dunham (1973), 13 Ill. App. 3d 784, 300 N.E.2d 382.) The absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the perpetrator of the crime demands a reversal of this conviction.