{
  "id": 5454097,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAMUEL LEE WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Wright",
  "decision_date": "1982-09-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 81-637",
  "first_page": "137",
  "last_page": "139",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "109 Ill. App. 3d 137"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "409 N.E.2d 129",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 Ill. App. 3d 192",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3178654
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/87/0192-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "408 N.E.2d 718",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 Ill. 2d 252",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5480356
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/81/0252-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 397,
    "char_count": 5514,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.752,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15974367617571528
    },
    "sha256": "645ae428dbddc5fde818a1e0508837b111dee1594fa7facf58ae7b6fb26f0b72",
    "simhash": "1:2653374d6adf854d",
    "word_count": 918
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:00:34.731811+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAMUEL LEE WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE BARRY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Samuel Lee Wright, was charged in an indictment with the offenses of murder, armed robbery, theft, and concealment of a homicidal death. Following a jury trial, the defendant was acquitted of all charges except the theft charge. A two-year term of imprisonment was imposed.\nOnly one issue is raised on appeal: whether the defendant\u2019s theft conviction must be reversed where the State\u2019s evidence was allegedly insufficient to show that the property taken by the defendant was from an individual legally capable of owning property. We affirm.\nThe evidence adduced at the defendant\u2019s trial revealed the following sequence of events. In the afternoon of February 9, 1981, Robert Dover withdrew $2,000 from his savings account at the First Savings and Loan Association in Wilmington, Illinois. Testimony by Robert\u2019s brother, James Dover, indicated that Robert had received an insurance settlement check in the amount of $23,000 on February 5, 1981. Apparently, Robert intended to make a $1,400 loan to his brother-in-law, Lauren Tousignant.\nThe defendant met Robert and James Dover at the Nite Owl Tavern during the afternoon of February 9, 1981. Robert Dover and the defendant left the tavern together in James\u2019 car, a gold 1974 Volkswagen. According to the defendant\u2019s testimony, he and Robert went crow hunting. Because it was cold and they had only one pair of gloves between them, they agreed that each would shoot five shells apiece while the other waited in the car. After the weapon was exchanged several times, Dover reportedly opened the car door and slid the weapon, a .20-gauge Mossberg, toward the defendant. As he did so, the weapon discharged. The defendant testified that he felt the gun hit the back of his leg. As he turned, he saw that Dover had been shot in the head. Dover\u2019s body fell out of the car onto the ground.\nThe defendant further testified that he knew Dover was dead. He panicked because he was on parole for a burglary and pulled Dover\u2019s body towards a nearby ditch. Upon returning to the Volkswagen, he noticed Dover\u2019s wallet on the dashboard. He opened the wallet and discovered a large amount of money. Reasoning that if he left the money there someone else would take it, the defendant decided to take the money and throw the wallet away.\nWith the help of his cousin, Tim Brassard, the defendant ditched the Volkswagen and retrieved the gun and guncase from a ditch. He and Brassard drove around until 10:30 p.m. that night, when Brassard dropped him off at home. The defendant was arrested the following morning.\nThe defendant was indicted for theft under section 16 \u2014 1(a)(1) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 16\u2014 1(a)(1)). The pertinent language in the statute reads as follows:\n\u201cA person commits theft when he knowingly:\n(a) Obtains or exerts unauthorized control over property of the owner;\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 16 \u2014 1(a).)\nThe term \u201cowner\u201d is defined in section 15 \u2014 2 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 15 \u2014 2) as:\n\u201c*** a person, other than the offender, who has possession of or any other interest in the property involved, even though such interest or possession is unlawful, and without whose consent the offender has no authority to exert control over the property.\u201d\nSection 2 \u2014 15 defines \u201cperson\u201d as:\n\u201c*** an individual, public or private corporation, government, partnership, or unincorporated association.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 2 \u2014 15.\nThe defendant contends that the State failed to prove either that Robert Dover was the \u201cowner\u201d of the property taken or a \u201cperson\u201d at the time the property was removed. The defendant also asserts that the issue raised is a case of first impression in Illinois. Perhaps. We need not wrestle with that question, however, since we have no testimony other than the defendant\u2019s to prove that Robert Dover was in fact dead when the money was taken from his wallet. If he wasn\u2019t dead, there is no problem with the proof offered. Because we have no expert testimony on the subject, we can just as easily assume that Dover was alive, albeit mortally wounded, when the money was taken as that he was dead.\nFurthermore, evidence established that the money contained in Dover\u2019s wallet was money that he had received in an insurance settlement and had removed from his savings account on the afternoon of February 9, 1981. The defendant admitted he removed the money from Dover\u2019s wallet. Obviously, the money was taken by the defendant without authorization.\nKeeping in mind the relaxation of the rules governing the proof of ownership necessary in theft and burglary cases in Illinois, we hold that the evidence in the case at bar clearly supports the defendant\u2019s theft conviction. (See In re W.S. (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 252, 408 N.E.2d 718; People v. Schaefer (1980), 87 Ill. App. 3d 192, 409 N.E.2d 129.) Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Kankakee County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSTOUDER and ALLOY, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE BARRY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Agostinelli, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "L. Patrick Power, State\u2019s Attorney, of Kankakee (John X. Breslin and Rita Kennedy Mertel, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAMUEL LEE WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 81\u2014637\nOpinion filed September 15, 1982.\nRehearing denied October 15, 1982.\nRobert Agostinelli, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nL. Patrick Power, State\u2019s Attorney, of Kankakee (John X. Breslin and Rita Kennedy Mertel, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0137-01",
  "first_page_order": 159,
  "last_page_order": 161
}