Court Opinion

ID: 9884408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:55:35.170028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:38.273546
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE DUNN, dissenting: I dissent in the majority holding that Stacie’s conviction of aggravated criminal sexual abuse must be reversed. The authority the majority cites for this erroneous conclusion is People v. Trumbley (1911), 252 Ill. 29, 36. If the authority cited by the majority had precedential value, I would then have no quarrel with their conclusion. However, it is quite clear that the expression of opinion in the turn-of-the-century Trumbley case was mere obiter dictum. The only issue involved there was the sufficiency of the indictment. The expression of opinion was based on assumed facts not present in the case. In my view, therefore, Trumbley is not binding authority. Moreover, the opinion gratuitously expressed by the court and adopted by the majority here was grounded on a faulty analysis. The State argues in this appeal that Stacie’s age is irrelevant because she was tried under a theory of accountability. I agree. A defendant is legally accountable for the conduct of another when: “(c) [ejither before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate such commission, he solicits, aids, abets, agrees or attempts to aid, such other person in the planning or commission of the offense.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 5—2(c).) Accountability is not a separate offense but merely an alternative manner of proving a defendant guilty of the substantive offense. People v. Doss (1981), 99 Ill. App. 3d 1026, 1029. One may aid and abet without actually participating in the offense. (People v. Hoskins (1990), 203 Ill. App. 3d 45, 53; People v. Jones (1989), 184 Ill. App. 3d 412, 431.) A defendant may be held accountable for rape when he or she was aware that the commission of the offense was taking place even though there is no evidence he or she actually participated in the act. People v. Jones, 184 Ill. App. 3d at 431. Because accountability is an alternative manner of proving a defendant guilty of a substantive offense, it is not necessary to prove all elements of that substantive offense. In the present case, the State need only prove Stacie Andersen aided and abetted her husband in the offense charged. It was not necessary for the State to prove Stacie committed the act itself as defined by the statute. It is the criminal act of her husband for which she is being held accountable. Her conviction of aggravated criminal sexual abuse should be affirmed.