{ "id": 5423540, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODNEY KING, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. King", "decision_date": "1993-12-30", "docket_number": "No. 3\u201493\u20140460", "first_page": "705", "last_page": "708", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "253 Ill. App. 3d 705" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "584 N.E.2d 89", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "91" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "145 Ill. 2d 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5596379 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "448" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/145/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "592 N.E.2d 668", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "229 Ill. App. 3d 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5214694 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/229/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "335 N.E.2d 437", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "440" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 Ill. 2d 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2965685 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "339" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/61/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "602 N.E.2d 798", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "799" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 Ill. 2d 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3292094 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "238" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/151/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "560 N.E.2d 303", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "308-09" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "137 Ill. 2d 162", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3251559 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "174-75" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/137/0162-01" ] }, { "cite": "266 N.E.2d 340", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "47 Ill. 2d 501", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2905198 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "504-05" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/47/0501-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 471, "char_count": 7340, "ocr_confidence": 0.766, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.8330052001468e-08, "percentile": 0.4169144610361453 }, "sha256": "1c3c351ac9c7c9fa0664db24dd2d48a532b17afc36e76133dd22fec4d11b4b16", "simhash": "1:bb13cc1ce67aa486", "word_count": 1205 }, "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. RODNEY KING, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE SLATER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant Rodney King was charged by indictment with the offense of burglary. The indictment alleged that on July 15, 1992, defendant \u201cwithout authority knowingly enter[ed] or remain[ed] within a motor vehicle *** with the intent to commit a theft therein.\u201d After waiving a jury trial, defendant was tried by the court on March 11,1993.\nThomas Jasper, a security guard for the Par-A-Dice riverboat casino, testified that on July 15, 1992, he saw the defendant inside a car parked in the casino parking lot. Subsequent testimony established that the car belonged to a casino employee and that defendant had not been given permission to enter it. Jasper ordered the defendant to get out of the car, turn around and spread out his hands. When the defendant opened his right hand, approximately 50 cents to a dollar in change fell out. According to Jasper, when the defendant was later asked what he was doing in the car, he stated that he was looking for change to find something to eat.\nDoctor Mortimer Beck, a psychiatrist, testified for the defense concerning his examination of the defendant. According to Beck, the defendant suffered from chronic schizophrenia, drug and alcohol addiction and brain damage. In Beck\u2019s opinion, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.\nDoctor Robert Chapman testified in rebuttal that defendant suffered from substance abuse disorder and schizotypal personality disorder. According to Chapman, at the time of the burglary, the defendant was not suffering from a mental disease or defect that caused him to lack substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.\nAt the conclusion of the testimony and closing arguments, the trial court took the case under advisement. The court subsequently found the defendant guilty but mentally ill of burglary and sentenced him to a three-year term of imprisonment. The sole issue raised by the defendant on appeal is that the indictment is duplicitous and therefore void. We affirm.\nIn People v. Heard (1970), 47 Ill. 2d 501, 266 N.E.2d 340, our supreme court held that a criminal complaint charging the defendants with gambling was void because it failed to set forth the nature and elements of the charge with sufficient certainty. The court stated:\n\u201cThe complaint charged that each defendant committed the offense of gambling in that \u2018She set up or promoted a Policy Game or (Sold) or (Offered to Sell) or (transferred) a ticket or (share) for a lottery or (sold) or (offered to sell) or (transferred) or (knowingly possessed) a policy ticket or other similar device: To Wit: Policy results tickets, Policy bet writings and other related gambling policy paraphernalia.\u2019 The complaint, following the language of the statute, charged the defendants in the disjunctive, that is, it charged that the defendants set up a policy game or promoted a policy game or sold tickets and so on. While a charge which follows the language of the statute defining the crime and uses the disjunctive \u2018or\u2019 will be sufficient under some circumstances, it will not be sufficient where the statute names disparate and alternative acts, any one of which will constitute the offense. [Citations.] The statute here named specific acts which constitute the crime of gambling, some of which acts are clearly disparate and alternative. The promoting of a policy game is not the same act as transferring a policy ticket, for example. The use of the disjunctive under these circumstances causes uncertainty and conjecture as to which of the alternatives the accused is charged with committing.\u201d Heard, 47 Ill. 2d at 504-05.\nTwenty years later, in People v. Capitol News, Inc. (1990), 137 Ill. 2d 162, 560 N.E.2d 303, the court relied on Heard in finding that indictments charging that the defendants sold or delivered obscene magazines were void. After quoting from the same portion of the Heard opinion that we have quoted above, the Capitol News court stated:\n\u201cThe [obscenity] statute involved provides that it is a crime if a person intentionally or recklessly \u2018[s]ells, delivers or provides or offers or agrees to sell, deliver or provide any obscene writing.\u2019 [Citation.] Thus it describes disparate and alternative acts, the performance of any one of which constitutes the offense. Acts of sale and of delivery are alternate and disparate acts. It is not necessary that a delivery be a sale; material can be delivered without having been sold. A sale may not involve delivery of what is sold. The proof of one may not be proof of the other. We consider the indictments involved were void for duplicity.\u201d Capitol News, 137 Ill. 2d at 174-75, 560 N.E.2d at 308-09.\nFinally, little more than one year ago, the supreme court again held that use of the disjunctive term \u201cor\u201d rendered a complaint duplicitous and void. In People v. Eagle Books, Inc. (1992), 151 Ill. 2d 235, 602 N.E.2d 798, the defendant was charged with 144 counts of obscenity for having \u201cprovided, offered for sale or otherwise made available an obscene magazine.\u201d (Eagle Books, 151 Ill. 2d at 238, 602 N.E.2d at 799.) The defendant contended that the complaint was void for duplicity and the court agreed, once again quoting Heard, as well as Capitol News.\nThe defendant in this case, unlike the defendants in Capitol News and Eagle Books, has raised the issue of the sufficiency of the charging instrument for the first time on appeal. \u201cWhen attacked for the first time on appeal a complaint is sufficient if it apprised the accused of the precise offense charged with sufficient specificity to prepare his defense and allow pleading a resulting conviction as a bar to future prosecution arising out of the same conduct.\u201d (People v. Pujoue (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 335, 339, 335 N.E.2d 437, 440; see also People v. Hughes (1992), 229 Ill. App. 3d 469, 592 N.E.2d 668.) Although the defendants in Heard, like the defendant here, did not challenge the sufficiency of the charging instrument in the trial court, Heard was decided prior to the standard of review announced in Pujoue. Under that standard, \u201cthe appellate court should consider whether the defect in the information or indictment prejudiced the defendant in preparing his defense.\u201d People v. Thingvold (1991), 145 Ill. 2d 441, 448, 584 N.E.2d 89, 91.\nThe defendant does not contend that the defect in the indictment prejudiced him in preparing his defense. Moreover, based on our review of the evidence presented at trial, it is apparent that charging the defendant in the disjunctive with \u201centering] or remainpng]\u201d had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the trial.\nFor the reasons stated above, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMcCUSKEY, P.J., and BARRY, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE SLATER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert Agostinelli, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.", "Kevin W. Lyons, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria (John X. Breslin and Robert M. Hansen, 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. RODNEY KING, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201493\u20140460\nOpinion filed December 30, 1993.\n\u2014 Rehearing denied January 19, 1994.\nRobert Agostinelli, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nKevin W. Lyons, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria (John X. Breslin and Robert M. Hansen, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0705-01", "first_page_order": 725, "last_page_order": 728 }