Court Opinion

ID: 9518522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:55:10.11459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:26.714622
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE LYTTON, dissenting: I dissent. Under the second Black’s Law Dictionary definition quoted by the majority, there is a requirement that Jessica “continu[e]” to “exercise *** a claim to the exclusive use of a material object.” 346 Ill. App. 3d at 485. Although Jessica exercised some control over the sealed envelope, it is difficult for me to conclude that her control was “to the exclusion of all others” or that she exercised a continuing claim to its exclusive use. The majority attempts to rationalize Jessica’s “control” but merely restates the dictionary definition as if it were a recitation of supporting facts. Instead of giving us a factual basis for its legal conclusion, the majority simply cites a legal conclusion, i.e., “Jessica exercised control over the envelope and its contents.” This is a meaningless repetition of the legal requirements of the statute as defined by Black’s. The majority gives us nothing but a legal conclusion to affirm this conviction. I would reverse, finding that the statutory requirements were not met in this case.