{ "id": 3491861, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVEN BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Bryant", "decision_date": "1985-02-07", "docket_number": "No. 83\u2014138", "first_page": "532", "last_page": "536", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "130 Ill. App. 3d 532" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "422 N.E.2d 605", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 Ill. 2d 241", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5470064 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "249" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/85/0241-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 N.E.2d 1153", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "102 Ill. 2d 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3156943 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "492-93" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/102/0485-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 495, "char_count": 8779, "ocr_confidence": 0.734, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08, "percentile": 0.4368770148375446 }, "sha256": "b7adf3b0144d381533a16fc26a4ce0969ee7dde4690189dd671fd8148d8a2cff", "simhash": "1:4c37902522330c2a", "word_count": 1500 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:58:49.109718+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. STEVEN BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE HARRISON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a jury trial in the circuit court of Marion County, Steven Bryant, defendant, was convicted of burglary and sentenced to seven years in prison. On appeal, defendant argues, among other things, that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree, and reverse defendant\u2019s conviction.\nThe evidence offered by the State established that Elmer Harris, custodian of the Lincoln School in Centralia, went to work at about 7 a.m. on November 30, 1981, and found that a window in the special education room of the school had been broken. Examination of the inside of the building revealed that various items, including food, a tool box, and a television set, had been taken from the school. On the ledge outside of the broken window, Harris found a yellow button. On cross-examination, Harris testified as follows:\n\u201cQ. So if it hadn\u2019t been for the fact that you noticed the wind was blowing the blind back and forth, kind of moving that blind, you probably wouldn\u2019t have noticed that button on the outside ledge, would you?\nA. No.\nQ. You wouldn\u2019t have taken a look at the window and noticed the button?\nA. If I hadn\u2019t seen the glass on the floor.\nQ. So the first time you noticed that button there was that Monday morning, the 30th of November?\nA. Yes.\nQ. If that blind was closed on that Sunday morning, chances are it would have been closed the preceding Saturday morning when you made your rounds, wouldn\u2019t it?\nA. Yes.\nQ. In fact, that button could have been there for quite some time and during the course of your regular duties, you wouldn\u2019t have noticed that button was there?\nA. You\u2019re right, yes.\u201d\nOn redirect examination, Harris testified:\n\u201cQ. Well, what I\u2019m saying\u2014what I\u2019m asking, you\u2019re standing there cleaning the window, the inside of the window, and the blinds are open. Now, in that process, wouldn\u2019t you see a button on the ledge if it was there?\nA. I would clean the inside of the ledge. I don\u2019t clean the inside of the windows all the time. Take a dust cloth and wipe along the ledge. I couldn\u2019t say whether it was there or not.\nQ. Not asking you if in fact it was there. I\u2019m asking you if\u2014would it be fair to say that if it was there, you would have seen it in the process of cleaning the ledge?\nA. More than likely.\u201d\nArland Speidel, a police officer for the city of Centralia, testified that he was aware that a yellow button had been found at the scene of the Lincoln School burglary. Speidel indicated that on December 2, 1981, he was asked to pick up defendant for questioning, and found defendant that same day playing basketball at the community center. When Speidel told defendant that Captain Edmundson of the police department wanted to talk to him, defendant indicated that he had to get his coat before going with Speidel. Defendant then picked up a long green coat with yellow buttons, two of which were missing. Speidel then brought defendant to the police department, and turned him over to Officer Simer and Captain Edmundson. Officer Speidel testified that the button found on the Lincoln School window ledge and buttons on defendant\u2019s coat looked \u201cjust alike,\u201d in that all of the buttons were \u201cbeat up\u201d and had paint chipped off of them. Officer Simer corroborated this testimony by describing the buttons as looking \u201cexactly the same.\u201d\nAdditional evidence presented by the State concerned the recovery of a television taken during the Lincoln School burglary. Lori Sharkey, who was pregnant with defendant\u2019s child, testified that she and Lawanda Barnes shared a house at 607 North Maple in Centralia, and that defendant came over to visit her \u201cevery now and then.\u201d According to Ms. Sharkey, Officer Simer and Captain Edmundson came to the 607 North Maple house on December 3, 1981, in order to get some items belonging to Mike Grady, who had admitted purchasing numerous items with bad checks. After recovering Grady\u2019s property, Simer and Edmundson spoke to Ms. Sharkey about the stolen television; precisely what was said is in dispute. Ms. Sharkey testified as follows:\n\u201cQ. Did they ask you a question about a T.V.?\nA. Yes.\nQ. What did they ask you?\nA. Told me Steve Bryant had sent me over for some belongings. I said, what? They started naming them. Said a T.V. I said, \u2018There it is.\u2019\nQ. After they said that, you told them, \u2018There it is\u2019?\nA. Yes.\nQ. And pointed to a T.V.?\nA. Right.\nQ. And that T.V. was located in .your bedroom, isn\u2019t that true?\nA. Right.\nQ. What did the Officers do after you told them where the T.V. was?\nA. He looked at the\u2014\nQ. Serial number?\nA. Yes, the serial number.\nQ. And then what did the officers do?\nA. He took it.\u201d\nMs. Sharkey also testified that she did not know how the television got in her room, and that the house had broken locks and could be entered without a key. On cross-examination, Ms. Sharkey indicated that her responses to the officers\u2019 questions were based on the assumption that they knew the television belonged to defendant, and not upon any knowledge she had regarding who owned the television. Ms. Sharkey also testified that Mike Grady was at her house \u201cabout every day\u201d during November of 1981, and that Grady brought stolen merchandise into the home. Moreover, according to Ms. Sharkey, defendant, who was no longer her boyfriend during November and December, seldom stayed at her house, while quite a few other people were in and out of the house during that time period.\nOfficer Simer and Captain Edmundson offered testimony regarding their conversation with Lori Sharkey at 607 North Maple. Simer testified that he asked Ms. Sharkey, \u201cWhat about the T.V. Steven Bryant brought to the house and left?\u201d and that she responded, \u201cIt\u2019s in the other room.\u201d Edmundson testified that he heard Simer ask Sharkey \u201cabout a T.Y. that Steve Bryant might have possibly left there from Lincoln School.\u201d\nDefendant offered the testimony of three witnesses, all of whom indicated that defendant was at the home of Bonnie Robinson, mother of one of his children, during the evening of November 29, 1981.\nIn reviewing the jury verdict finding the defendant guilty, we are obligated not only to carefully consider the evidence, but to reverse the judgment if the evidence is not sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt of the defendant\u2019s guilt and is not sufficient to create an abiding conviction that defendant is guilty of the crime charged. (People v. Ash (1984), 102 Ill. 2d 485, 492-93, 468 N.E.2d 1153.) Upon careful examination of the record here, we are compelled to conclude that defendant was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The two principal facts tending to connect defendant with the crime\u2014discovery of the button on the window ledge and recovery of the television from Lori Sharkey\u2019s home\u2014simply do not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the offense. While the State points out that the button found on the window ledge was unusual and exactly like the buttons on defendant\u2019s coat, the clear thrust of custodian Harris\u2019 testimony was that he could not say when the button got on the ledge. In analyzing the sufficiency of fingerprint evidence in burglary cases, our supreme court has held that such evidence \u201cmust have been found in the immediate vicinity of the crime under such circumstances as to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the fingerprints were impressed at the time the crime was committed.\u201d (People v. Rhodes (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 241, 249, 422 N.E.2d 605.) Applying a similar analysis here, we must conclude that, even if the button was distinctive enough to support the conclusion that it came from defendant\u2019s coat, the evidence was not sufficient to establish that the button fell onto the ledge during the commission of the burglary. Finally, recovery of the television in the house shared by Lori Sharkey and Lawanda Barnes does not, even when considered along with the evidence regarding the button, establish defendant\u2019s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, where the evidence showed that the house was visited almost daily by a person who brought in unlawfully obtained merchandise, that the locks to the house were broken, and that defendant stayed there infrequently.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Marion County is reversed.\nReversed.\nEARNS and EASSERMAN, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE HARRISON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Randy E. Blue and Larry R. Wells, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.", "Robert W. Matoush, State\u2019s Attorney, of Salem (Kenneth R. Boyle, Stephen E. Norris, and Susan M. Young, all 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. STEVEN BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.\nFifth District\nNo. 83\u2014138\nOpinion filed February 7, 1985.\nRandy E. Blue and Larry R. Wells, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.\nRobert W. Matoush, State\u2019s Attorney, of Salem (Kenneth R. Boyle, Stephen E. Norris, and Susan M. Young, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0532-01", "first_page_order": 554, "last_page_order": 558 }