{
  "id": 3637844,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DELBERT ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Ellis",
  "decision_date": "1985-07-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 4-84-0823",
  "first_page": "924",
  "last_page": "926",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "134 Ill. App. 3d 924"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "399 N.E.2d 206",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 Ill. App. 3d 213",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3231016
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/80/0213-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "361 N.E.2d 861",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ill. App. 3d 899",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2975398
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/46/0899-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "468 N.E.2d 1237",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 Ill. App. 3d 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3562803
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/127/0350-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "389 N.E.2d 1200",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Ill. 2d 19",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2984278
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/76/0019-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "432 N.E.2d 861",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 Ill. 2d 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5493967
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/89/0352-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 S. Ct. 578",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 L. Ed. 2d 507",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "396 U.S. 1016",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11418880,
        11418916,
        11418950,
        11418989,
        11419030,
        11418842
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/396/1016-02",
        "/us/396/1016-03",
        "/us/396/1016-04",
        "/us/396/1016-05",
        "/us/396/1016-06",
        "/us/396/1016-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.E.2d 771",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 Ill. 2d 91",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2848334
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/42/0091-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 389,
    "char_count": 5500,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.767,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0749437448887228e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5607251619689024
    },
    "sha256": "36272e84f0f4706c1525c7edab15d89b852c342b31aca7bf8a10e7f272d1ec2d",
    "simhash": "1:ccc675be1be52c07",
    "word_count": 913
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:26:11.266607+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. DELBERT ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE WOMBACHER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant appeals his conviction for felony theft. We affirm.\nDefendant was charged with the theft of a car belonging to William Pultz. The theft occurred when defendant, having legitimate possession of the car, sold it without Pultz\u2019 permission. A jury convicted defendant upon the following facts.\nIn late August 1984, William Pultz and his uncle, Lurty Pultz, had planned to trade their automobiles with each other. William properly assigned title to his car to Lurty. The next day, Lurty rescinded the deal. William\u2019s car was returned that day, along with the title. Lurty\u2019s name, as assignee, was scratched out, leaving William\u2019s assignor signature.\nOn September 1, William gave the car to defendant to have it serviced for an upcoming trip to Virginia. William had hired defendant to do the driving. Defendant knew of the open title in the trunk of the car. He took the car to Cole Motors and sold it for $550.\nDefendant was convicted and sentenced to five years. He appeals, claiming two points of error.\nThe first error defendant claims is that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The basis for this is, in essence, that William Pultz did not testify at trial that defendant did not have permission to sell the car. We note at the outset that the decision of the jury will be overturned only if palpably contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Nicholls (1969), 42 Ill. 2d 91, 245 N.E.2d 771, cert. denied (1970), 396 U.S. 1016, 24 L. Ed. 2d 507, 90 S. Ct. 578.\nDefendant made an inculpatory statement to the police. He admitted that the car was sold without permission. However, this alone would not be enough to convict. There must be some independent and corroborating evidence which must establish that a crime occurred. (People v. Willingham (1982), 89 Ill. 2d 352, 432 N.E.2d 861.) This corroboration, however, does not have to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if there is evidence that tends to prove that an offense occurred or that the confession is not a product of the defendant\u2019s imagination. People v. Willingham (1982), 89 Ill. 2d 352, 432 N.E.2d 861.\nWe find such independent and corroborative evidence exists in this case. Ron Cole, of Cole Motors, testified that he purchased the car from defendant for $550. Cole stated that defendant said that he had bought the car from a \u201cgentleman\u201d with whom he had been drinking the night before. Defendant further said that the \u201cgentleman\u201d wanted the car back, but defendant was keeping it. This was to explain the signature on the back of the title.\nCole\u2019s testimony substantially corroborates defendant\u2019s confession. Defendant was clearly shown to have sold someone else\u2019s car. Title was not in his name, but was in blank. To further show that it was sold without permission, it was shown that defendant was arrested the very day he sold the car. The action by the police was prompted by the complaint of William Pultz. The jury could reasonably infer that Pultz would not have promptly complained had the car not been sold without his permission. Finally, although it is not an essential element of the crime, the State showed a motive on defendant\u2019s behalf. William Pultz owed defendant $200. Defendant sold the car and used the proceeds to cover the debt.\nTherefore, we find sufficient evidence was presented to affirm the verdict.\nDefendant\u2019s second point of error alleged that comments made by the prosecutor in closing argument deprived defendant of a fair trial by prejudicing the jury. Defendant points to five different comments made by the prosecutor. However, only two were properly preserved for appeal. The remaining comments were never objected to, nor were they raised in defendant\u2019s post-trial motion.\nThe objections to the comments were properly sustained. The court also instructed the jury to disregard them. This action by the court served to cure any error that may have occurred. People v. Baptist (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 19, 389 N.E.2d 1200; People v. Goodum (1984), 127 Ill. App. 3d 350, 468 N.E.2d 1237.\nAlthough not preserved, we will analyze the prosecutor\u2019s reference to the reasonable-doubt standard. He stated, \u201cWe have the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not mean beyond the possibility of a doubt or a shadow of a doubt. There is a possibility of some.\u201d While such comments as these should be avoided, our examination reveals that the comments were not prejudicial. Comments as those made here have been found harmless in other cases, even when properly preserved. (People v. Amos (1977), 46 Ill. App. 3d 899, 361 N.E.2d 861; People v. Gray (1979), 80 Ill. App. 3d 213, 399 N.E.2d 206.) The remaining comments complained of were alleged to be misstatements of the evidence. We find that these comments were not properly preserved for this appeal and consider them waived.\nTherefore, for the foregoing reasons, the circuit court of Macon County is hereby affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSCOTT and BARRY, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE WOMBACHER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel D. Yuhas and Judith N. Kirby, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Jeffrey K. Davison, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur (Robert J. Biderman and David E. Mannchen, 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. DELBERT ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201484\u20140823\nOpinion filed July 18, 1985.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and Judith N. Kirby, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nJeffrey K. Davison, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur (Robert J. Biderman and David E. Mannchen, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0924-01",
  "first_page_order": 946,
  "last_page_order": 948
}