Court Opinion

ID: 9715891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:19:07.37556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:39.584451
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE O’BRIEN, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the reversal of the armed robbery conviction and the remand to enter a conviction for robbery and sentence thereon. Here, the State has admitted that there was no evidence regarding whether the gun was loaded and that the gun falls into the third category of objects, those that can be used as a dangerous weapon. Whether an object in the third category is a dangerous weapon is a question of fact to be resolved by the trier of fact. People v. Lindsay, 263 Ill. App. 3d 523, 528 (1994). Factually, defendant accompanied three other persons, one carrying a gun, and approached the victim. One of defendant’s companions displayed the gun, demanded money from the victim and pointed the gun at the victim’s head. Defendant and two of the companions went through the pockets of the victim and kept a lookout while the third companion kept the gun at the victim’s head. The victim described the weapon as a “black pistol” and the officers described the weapon as a “hard object” and a Marksman .177-caliber black BB gun. The trial court did not err in finding the gun held to the head of the victim was a dangerous weapon even without making a specific finding as to the weapon’s dangers. People v. Hill, 47 Ill. App. 3d 976, 978 (1977). Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court on all issues and respectfully dissent from the majority.