{
  "id": 5424897,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID O'BANION, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. O'Banion",
  "decision_date": "1993-12-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201492\u20140896",
  "first_page": "427",
  "last_page": "429",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "253 Ill. App. 3d 427"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "438 N.E.2d 180",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 Ill. 2d 346",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3092628
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/91/0346-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "487 N.E.2d 1088",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 Ill. App. 3d 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3567111
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/139/0471-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "478 N.E.2d 267",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 Ill. 2d 237",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3138930
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/106/0237-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 356,
    "char_count": 5007,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.777,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7817273071113374e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2996558872737368
    },
    "sha256": "3d59669b90d946b19334f889f6130fe9f58296a9882577c071fb7d160fa2ca3c",
    "simhash": "1:bae42c34f0c8ac0a",
    "word_count": 839
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:32.530889+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. DAVID O\u2019BANION, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McCUSKEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, David O\u2019Banion, was found guilty of burglary and retail theft. He was sentenced to 24 months of probation, a $1,000 fine, and 200 hours of public service for the burglary and assessed costs for the retail theft. The defendant appeals.\nAt trial, Steven Benson testified that he was working as a loss control manager for K mart on February 28, 1992. At 8:11 p.m., he was looking out of a security window in the pharmacy area of the store when he first noticed the defendant. The defendant pushed an empty shopping cart up to a counter in an area under remodeling. He picked up a plastic K mart merchandise bag and placed it in the bottom of the cart. The defendant then went over to a Nintendo video game display, placed four game-cartridges in the cart, and covered them with the bag. Afterward, the defendant went to the rear of the store.\nBenson followed and watched the defendant through a one-way mirror. The defendant put three of the game cartridges in the bag and the remaining cartridge in his coat. At this point, Benson went to the front of the store ahead of the defendant and asked stock boy Junior Martinez to assist him. As the defendant approached the front of the store, he removed the bag from the cart and left the store without going through a register.\nOutside, Benson identified himself as a security officer and asked the defendant to return to the store. The defendant ignored Benson and continued walking. Benson then grabbed the defendant\u2019s wrist and the bag. In response, the defendant struck Benson. Martinez then grabbed the defendant from behind. During this struggle, a game cartridge fell from the defendant\u2019s coat. The defendant then agreed to return to the store. However, as Martinez released him, the defendant ran to a vehicle driven by a woman, got in, and the vehicle drove off. Benson observed the license plate number of the vehicle. It was registered in the defendant\u2019s name. The defendant was subsequently arrested.\nOn appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he entered the premises with the intent to commit a theft so as to sustain his burglary conviction. We agree.\nWhen a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that resulted in his conviction, a reviewing court will uphold the conviction only if, upon viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the court finds that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 237, 478 N.E.2d 267.\nThe burglary indictment alleged that the defendant \u201cwithout authority, knowingly entered a building of K-Mart *** with the intent to commit therein a theft.\u201d Section 19 \u2014 1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 19 \u2014 1) defines burglary as follows:\n\u201cA person commits burglary when without authority he knowingly enters or without authority remains within a building, *** or any part thereof, with intent to commit therein a felony or theft.\u201d\nBy charging the defendant with burglary by illegal entry, the State had the burden of proving that the defendant entered the K mart store without authority and with the intent to steal. People v. Boose (1985), 139 Ill. App. 3d 471, 487 N.E.2d 1088.\nIn the instant case, there is no evidence that the defendant intended to commit a theft when he entered the store. In fact, there is no testimony as to when the defendant entered the store, how long he was there, and what his actions were before being noticed by the loss control manager. As a result, there is no evidence from which the defendant\u2019s intent at the time of entry could be reasonably inferred. Accordingly, the State\u2019s evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant entered the store with the intent to commit a theft.\nThe defendant also argues that since the legislature created separate crimes for burglary and retail theft, it did not intend retail theft to be prosecuted as a burglary. However, since we have reversed the burglary conviction on other grounds, we find that this issue is moot. Therefore, we shall not address it.\nFor the reasons indicated, we reverse the defendant\u2019s conviction and sentence for burglary. We affirm the defendant\u2019s conviction for retail theft and remand the cause for resentencing on that count. See People v. Dixon (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 346, 438 N.E.2d 180.\nReversed in part; affirmed in part and remanded.\nSTOUDER and BARRY, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McCUSKEY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Agostinelli, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "Gary L. Spencer, State\u2019s Attorney, of Morrison (John X. Breslin and Gary F. Gnidovec, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID O\u2019BANION, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201492\u20140896\nOpinion filed December 17, 1993.\nRobert Agostinelli, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nGary L. Spencer, State\u2019s Attorney, of Morrison (John X. Breslin and Gary F. Gnidovec, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0427-01",
  "first_page_order": 447,
  "last_page_order": 449
}