Court Opinion

ID: 9723695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:27:48.594872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:51.148613
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE O’BRIEN, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority on all issues. This case is about acts and the purposes or reasons for those acts. Here, defendant was convicted of the act of luring children. His purpose for luring them was for his potential sexual gratification with them which is other than a lawful purpose. How is his purpose proven? The statute reads: “the luring or attempted luring of a child under the age of 16 into a *** dwelling place -without the consent of the parent or lawful custodian of the child shall be prima facie evidence of other than a lawful purpose.” 720 ILCS 5/10—5(b)(10) (West 2000). Proof of his purpose at the moment of the act of luring is the concern of this portion of the statute. There was no evidence rebutting the prima facie evidence that he lured them for other than a lawful purpose; indeed, defendant’s own admissions show that the purpose for luring them was for his potential sexual gratification/contact with the children. That his purpose was not fulfilled is irrelevant. For the same reasons, a bill of particulars regarding subsequent acts was irrelevant and its denial was not error. Further, the speedy trial statute was not violated because the subsequent indictments were re-indictments of the original abduction charges and no new offenses were added. People v. Stanley, 266 Ill. App. 3d 307 (1994). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the judgement of the circuit court. Also, by the suggestion and consent of the State, I would vacate the order requiring a blood submission.