{ "id": 2868748, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Davis, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Davis", "decision_date": "1975-03-31", "docket_number": "No. 58264", "first_page": "288", "last_page": "291", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "27 Ill. App. 3d 288" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "214 N.E.2d 320", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "66 Ill.App.2d 282", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5291686 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/66/0282-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 N.E.2d 640", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 Ill.App.2d 151", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5220880 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/29/0151-01" ] }, { "cite": "147 N.E.2d. 338", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "13 Ill.2d 58", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2773629 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/13/0058-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 N.E.2d 209", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "4 Ill.2d 155", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2702245 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/4/0155-01" ] }, { "cite": "246 N.E.2d 287", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "42 Ill.2d 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2847545 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/42/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "192 N.E.2d 398", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 Ill.2d 286", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5362845 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/28/0286-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 N.E.2d 210", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1 Ill.App.3d 988", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5313827 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/1/0988-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 N.E.2d 365", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "13 Ill.App.3d 1079", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5342109 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/13/1079-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 N.E.2d 596", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 Ill.2d 603", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2761814 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "607" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/16/0603-01" ] }, { "cite": "310 N.E.2d 708", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 Ill.App.3d 836", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2614985 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/18/0836-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 N.E.2d 702", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "384 Ill. 529", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2490923 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "533-34" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/384/0529-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 486, "char_count": 7740, "ocr_confidence": 0.763, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08522890716794686 }, "sha256": "5ac5bc69c030124fef495991e535357f5e196d1a75503980e87bad543617716e", "simhash": "1:621944a8e2c38bd2", "word_count": 1309 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:05.356803+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. Robert Davis, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE LEIGHTON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nRobert Davis, 20 years of age, waived trial by jury. He was found guilty of attempt to commit theft and criminal damage to property. The court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 1 year in the Illinois State Farm in Vandalia. In this appeal, he presents two issues. (1) Was there sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions? (2) Was he denied effective assistance of counsel at his trial?\nWe have reviewed the evidence favorably to the State, and it is our judgment that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the convictions. We reverse.\nI.\nThe facts and the evidence\nOn August 10, 1972, at about 7:30 P.M., John Thomas, owner of a small grocery store at 3925 West Huron Street in Chicago, closed his place of business for the night. The windows were intact; the doors were locked. Five hours or so later, at about 1 A.M. the next morning, Thomas was called to the store and discovered that the front window was broken, a cash register missing and that $55 to $75 had been taken. Scattered all over the floor were money and pieces of paper.\nAt about 12:30 A.M., just before Thomas was called, Investigator Thomas Arens and his partner drove by the store and noticed the broken front window. The two left their car; Arens remained in front of the building while his partner went through an alley to the rear. \u201cApproximately a minute and subsequently shortly thereafter [sic] * * Arens\u2019 partner called him. Arens went to the rear of the store and found his partner with two men in custody. They were Robert Davis and Tommy Esco who were standing \u201c[i]n the backyard, right behind the opened door\u201d that led out of the rear of the grocery store. Arens did not witness the arrest nor did he see Davis and Esco come out of the store. The two prisoners were searched, but \u201c[n]othing pertinent to the offense[s]\u201d was found on either of them. The cash register was not found, nor were the $55 to $75.\nArens, however, noticed that \u201c* * * Esco had small particles of glass imbedded in both hands,\u201d and on Davis\u2019 right palm \u201c* * * there was a slight laceration.\u201d Both men were taken to a police station and were later charged with burglary of the Thomas grocery store. They were brought, to court, and the public defender was appointed to represent him. After the cases were passed, the charges were again called when the State requested and was granted leave to file two misdemeanor complaints against each defendant. One charged attempt to commit theft; the other, criminal damage to the Thomas grocery store. The trial proceeded with the State presenting evidence that consisted of two photographs of the burglarized premises, the testimony of Thomas and that of Arens. The officer who arrested Davis and Esco did not testify.\nThe two defendants were the only defense witnesses. .Esco told the court that he was arrested by Arens\u2019 partner and taken to the rear of the alley as he was walking past the Thomas grocery store. Davis said that he entered the alley and was accosted by an officer who drew a gun and arrested him. Both defendants testified that they were on their way to visit a friend who lived nearby. The State did not offer any rebuttal.\nAfter hearing the evidence and denying defendants\u2019 motions for direct findings of not guilty, the trial court rilled that although the State\u2019s case against Davis and Esco was entirely circumstantial and that he would have.agreed with defense counsel\u2019s arguments for the acquittal of both accused, \u201c* * * except for the glass * * * there was no way of [defendants] going in there without obtaining some glass on their bodies unless they flew through and, therefore, the Court believes that with all the facts and \u2014 there will be a finding of guilty on both charges [sic].\u2019\u2019 Thereafter, both defendants were sentenced. Only Davis appeals his convictions.\nII.\nThe law and our conclusions\nIt is clear that the State\u2019s case against Davis and Esco was based on evidence entirely circumstantial. No one saw them break the window of Thomas\u2019 grocery store. No one saw them either enter or leave the premises. No State witness knew .either the exact place or circumstance of their arrest. The decisive facts were those given in Arens\u2019 testimony in which he described seeing the two defendants in his partner\u2019s custody near the opened rear door of the grocery store, Esco with pieces of glass in his bands, Davis with a laceration in his right palm. Therefore, this is \u00e1 case in which support for the convictions we review is circumstantial evidence.\nCircumstantial evidence is legal evidence, and where strong and convincing in character, it is sufficient to support \u00e1 conviction. (People v. Hendron, 384 Ill. 529, 533-34, 51 N.E.2d 702; see People v. Tornabene, 18 Ill.App.3d 836, 310 N.E.2d 708.) However, to warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the facts proved must so thoroughly establish the guilt of the person accused that it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. People v. Dougard, 16 Ill.2d 603, 607, 158 N.E.2d 596; People v. Turner, 13 Ill.App.3d 1079, 302 N.E.2d 365.\nIn this case, the State did not prove an unsuccessful attempt to commit a theft in Thomas\u2019 grocery store. It proved a burglary, one that involved the successful nocturnal theft of a cash register and of money totalling $55 to $75. It was the State\u2019s theory, one which the trial court accepted, that Davis and Esco were the persons who broke the grocery stor\u00e9 window, went through the premises and were apprehended by Arens\u2019 partner just as they emerged through the opened rear door. The State\u2019s evidence included proof that neither the cash register nor the missing money was found in the possession of the two men. In fact, as far as the record before us is concerned, these items of Thomas\u2019 property have never been recovered. In our judgment, the State proved too much. Implicit in this proof was the suggestion, a strong one, that some person or persons, other than Davis and Esco, broke the grocery store window, went in, took the cash register and the $55 to $75.\nThis is not a case in which an accused was found near the proceeds of an attempted burglary or theft. (See People v. Diaz, 1 Ill.App.3d 988, 275 N.E.2d 210.) Nor is this one in which comparison forensic evidence connected an,accused with the scene of a crime. (Compare People v. Green, 28 Ill.2d 286, 192 N.E.2d 398; People v. Bey, 42 Ill.2d 139, 246 N.E.2d 287.) For these reasons, Arens\u2019 testimony, no matter how favorably it is construed for the State, did not prove, beyond a' reasonable doubt, that Davis, either alone or with others, committed the crimes against Thomas\u2019 property. The officer who arrested him, and who, perhaps could have furnished relevant testimony, was not called to testify. As a result, Davis\u2019 version of his arrest was uncontradicted. It could not be disregarded. (People v. Jordan, 4 Ill.2d 155, 122 N.E.2d 209.) Therefore, we conclude that the State\u2019s evidence did not prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Guardino, 13 Ill.2d 58, 147 N.E.2d. 338; People v. Flores, 29 Ill.App.2d 151, 172 N.E.2d 640; People v. DiVito, 66 Ill.App.2d 282, 214 N.E.2d 320.) His convictions cannot stand.\nReversed.\nSTAMOS and HAYES, JJ., concur.\nTherefore, it is unnecessary that we resolve the remaining issue.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE LEIGHTON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Paul Bradley, and Laurence A. Benner, both of the State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Barry Rand Elden, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Davis, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 58264;\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nMarch 31, 1975.\nPaul Bradley, and Laurence A. Benner, both of the State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Barry Rand Elden, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0288-02", "first_page_order": 314, "last_page_order": 317 }