Court Opinion

ID: 9711837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:40:13.152488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:07.823433
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BOWMAN, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority’s finding that the Salvation Army chapel is a “church” for purposes of section 407(b)(2) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (Act) (720 ILCS 570/407(b)(2) (West 2000)). According to the Act, any person who violates subsection (d) of section 401: “within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising any church, synagogue, or other building, structure, or place used primarily for religious worship *** is guilty of a Class 1 felony, the fine for which shall not exceed $250,000.” 720 ILCS 570/407(b)(2) (West 2000). I agree with the majority that the legislature intended the term “church” to mean a “place used primarily for religious worship.” However, I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion that the jury could have found that the “chapel” was a “church” because the sole purpose of the chapel was to conduct regular worship services. The effect of the majority’s reasoning is to permit the term “church” to encompass other “places used primarily for religious worship.” Essentially, this interpretation broadens the scope of the word “church” to include “chapel” and arguably any other “place used primarily for religious worship.” Moreover, Black’s Law Dictionary defines “chapel” as “[a] place of worship; a lesser or inferior church, sometimes a part of or subordinate to another church.” Black’s Law Dictionary 232 (6th ed. 1990). As evidenced by its definition, the word “chapel” is distinct from the word “church” in that it is placed in a lesser category than a “church.” While the majority’s lack of differentiation between the words “church” and “chapel” is of little consequence when the facts involve a church or synagogue housing a smaller chapel, the distinction becomes important here. In this case, it is clear from the evidence that the Salvation Army building possesses no attributes of a “place used primarily for religious worship.” Of critical importance are the photographs of the building, entered into evidence, which indicate absolutely no hint of the religious activity held therein. For example, nowhere in the pictures do there appear any special features characteristic of a church, such as a steeple, stained glass window, or large wooden entry door. Even the large sign located above the separate entrance to the chapel, which reads “The Salvation Army Corps Community Center,” is not indicative of a church. Although I agree with the majority that there is no statutory requirement that a “church” possess specific physical characteristics, it is important to recognize that the building in question possesses not one feature indicative of a church. In sum, I believe the majority’s conclusion that a “chapel” is a “church” dangerously enhances the delivery offense beyond the scope intended by the legislature. Presumably, any delivery within 1,000 feet of a chapel, despite its location or indicia of religious worship, would be in violation of the Act. For example, a chapel located on the thirtieth floor of the Empire State Building, or in a large shopping mall, would conceivably fall under the statute. In short, I fear that such a broad definition of “church” would not encompass the intent of the legislature and would result in applying this enhanced criminal offense in too many instances where a nonenhanced delivery charge would suffice. In addition, the majority in this case need not stretch the definition of “chapel” to be a “church” for purposes of the Act. The statutory language in section 407(b)(2) clearly addresses this situation by stating that a delivery offense is enhanced when the delivery occurs within 1,000 feet of a “church, synagogue, or other building, structure, or place used primarily for religious worship.” (Emphasis added.) 720 ILCS 570/407(b)(2) (West 2000). Rather than find a “chapel” to be a “church,” a more reasonable analysis of the statutory language would consider whether the Salvation Army was a “building” used “primarily for religious worship” within the meaning of the Act. 720 ILCS 570/ 407(b)(2) (West 2000). In classifying the Salvation Army as a “building” under the statute, I do not believe the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Salvation Army building was used “primarily for religious worship” (720 ILCS 570/407(b)(2) (West 2000)). On a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, the relevant inquiry is whether any reasonable fact finder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985). Even if the sole purpose of the chapel was to conduct religious services, which were held only twice a week, the chapel was only one part of a much larger building not used primarily for religious worship. As the Salvation Army minister testified, “[W]e use the whole building for different things. It just depends on what the day is as to what parts of the building is [sic] used.” According to the minister, the Salvation Army structure was considered one building used for a variety of activities. The record is clear that this particular Salvation Army building supported youth services, a soup kitchen and a food pantry. As a result, the primary use of the majority of the building was something other than religious worship. In addition, as stated earlier, the photographs of the building showed no features typical of a place used primarily for religious worship. Thus, even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, I do not believe a reasonable fact finder could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Salvation Army building was “psed primarily for religious worship.” Finally, as defendant argues, this court may take judicial notice of matters of common knowledge or facts that are easily verifiable. Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 230 Ill. App. 3d 591, 597 (1992). Generally speaking, the Salvation Army is a religious movement which provides an array of social services to the poor. Salvation Army v. Department of Revenue, 170 Ill. App. 3d 336, 338 (1988). However, the fact that the Salvation Army has a religious purpose does not mean that the building in question is a “church” used “primarily for religious worship.” The facts in this case, as mentioned earlier, show that this particular Salvation Army building served a variety of purposes, both religious and charitable. As defendant notes, virtually any person out and about during the Christmas season has witnessed bell-ringers from the Salvation Army soliciting donations for those in need. Because the Salvation Army is known universally for its contributions to those in need, perhaps even more than its religious mission, I disagree with the majority’s position that its facilities in this case were used primarily for religious worship. Consequently, I do not believe that the evidence presented, specifically noting the appearance of the building and the testimony of the minister as to the variety of activities held therein, supports a finding that the building in question was used primarily for religious worship. In sum, I disagree with the majority in this case that the jury could have concluded that the “chapel” was a “church.” In addition, I believe that a reasonable fact finder, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Salvation Army building in question was “used primarily for religious worship” within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, I would reverse defendant’s conviction and sentence for violation of section 407(b)(2) of the Act (720 ILCS 570/407(b)(2) (West 2000)), find defendant guilty of delivering less than one gram of cocaine pursuant to section 401(d) of the Act (720 ILCS 570/401(d) (West 2000)), a Class 2 felony, and remand the cause to the trial court for sentencing for that offense.