Court Opinion

ID: 9530419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:59:43.9929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:06.648251
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING Mr. JUSTICE RIZZI delivered the opinion of the court: Defendant has filed a petition for rehearing requesting that we reach her argument that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. Shortly before the release of our opinion, the supreme court in People v. Taylor (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 289, 309, 391 N.E.2d 366,375, held that once the beyond a reasonable doubt issue has been raised, it must be addressed even though the case is reversed and remanded on other grounds. In light of Taylor, we deem it necessary to supplement our statement of facts in considering this issue. A shortage of *1,666.87 from the July 1, 1977, receipts and *2,411.00 from the July 2,1977, receipts was discovered, making a total shortage of approximately *4,100 for the two days. Defendant was on duty both days. On July 2, 1977, when the shortage of *2,411 occurred, Manager James Maxwell was in Arkansas. The office was closed on July 3 and 4 for the holidays. On July 5, 1977, the Brink’s messenger made a pickup of the receipts from the office safe where the receipts had been deposited by defendant. The safe was in two sections. The front section was secured by a combination lock; the combination was known only to defendant and Maxwell. The second section could be opened by the use of two separate keys. Both defendant and Maxwell had copies of one key, and the Brink’s messenger had the other key. When there was a pickup by the Brink’s messenger, the receipts from the safe were removed and tallied and the amount was written on the envelope containing the receipts. Defendant testified that on July 1,1977, she collected *4,676.87. Only *3,010 was actually deposited on July 1,1977; thus, a shortage of *1,666.87 existed. She also stated that she filled out deposit slips for the amount collected and made nine “drops” into the safe. She testified that one drop was in excess of *1,500 and a deposit slip was written for that amount. However, other than defendant’s testimony, there is no evidence that defendant wrote this deposit slip. Moreover, the president of Walton Realty testified that his examination of various documents and records failed to disclose the “whereabouts” of the shortage. Regarding the second shortage, defendant was the only person on duty in the office on July 2, 1977. On that date, she made one drop totalling *3,866.14. Later it was discovered that several tenants paid their rent on that day; none of these tenants received receipts, and these rent payments were not recorded on the cash sheet. A shortage of *2,411 was later detected.  From the evidence presented, we believe the jury could have properly found defendant guilty of felony theft. Therefore, we deny defendant’s petition for rehearing. We emphasize, however, that wre make no finding as to defendant’s guilt that would be binding on the court on retrial. Indeed, defendant is entitled to her presumption of innocence. Our consideration of the sufficiency of the evidence question comports with the supreme court’s mandate in Taylor to protect defendant’s constitutional right against double jeopardy. In accordance with our original and supplemental opinions, this case is reversed and remanded for a new trial. Petition for rehearing is denied. Reversed and remanded. SIMON, P. J., and McGILLICUDDY, J„ concur.