{
  "id": 1156783,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WARREN WOZNICK, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Woznick",
  "decision_date": "1996-03-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 4 \u2014 95 \u2014 0204",
  "first_page": "826",
  "last_page": "829",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "278 Ill. App. 3d 826"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "740 P.2d 744",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10406099
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "745"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/p2d/740/0744-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "427 So. 2d 280",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        9525424,
        9525484
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "282"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/so2d/427/0280-01",
        "/so2d/427/0280-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "504 N.E.2d 333",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        11015561
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "334"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ne2d/504/0333-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 Pa. Super. 151",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa. Super.",
      "case_ids": [
        618624
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "162"
        },
        {
          "page": "1133"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/pa-super/334/0151-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "790 P.2d 515",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1590319
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "517"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/109/0718-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "514 N.E.2d 989",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "992"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 Ill. 2d 194",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3188512
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "199"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/118/0194-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 N.E.2d 748",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "750"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Ill. App. 3d 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2698035
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "412"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/19/0410-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "487 N.E.2d 606",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "607"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 Ill. 2d 309",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3126284
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "313"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/109/0309-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "533 N.E.2d 1121",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1124",
          "parenthetical": "court did not decide whether the defendant's extrajudicial admissions alone would satisfy a preponderance of the evidence since other evidence corroborated the admissions"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 Ill. App. 3d 681",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2431177
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "685",
          "parenthetical": "court did not decide whether the defendant's extrajudicial admissions alone would satisfy a preponderance of the evidence since other evidence corroborated the admissions"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/178/0681-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "519 N.E.2d 126",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "128-29"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 Ill. App. 3d 342",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3613592
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "345"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/165/0342-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "432 N.E.2d 861",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "864"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 Ill. 2d 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5493967
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "358"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/89/0352-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Ill. 426",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2593528
      ],
      "year": 1856,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "428-29"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/17/0426-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 493,
    "char_count": 7356,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.779,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.644804978680933e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5278661033905838
    },
    "sha256": "7d159510b008eab152def9c4d0a426dde5d66585ae6dc83ecb5d67f0db542903",
    "simhash": "1:316ab1c99848a9e1",
    "word_count": 1190
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:33:42.611238+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. WARREN WOZNICK, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE McCULLOUGH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn January 7, 1994, defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of cannabis in violation of section 4(d) of the Cannabis Control Act (720 ILCS 550/4(d) (West 1992)) and was sentenced to 18 months\u2019 probation. On August 15, 1994, a petition to revoke probation was filed based on defendant\u2019s subsequent arrest for theft (720 ILCS 5/16 \u2014 1 (West 1994)). Following hearings held in November and December 1994, defendant\u2019s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to three years\u2019 imprisonment. The trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion to reconsider sentence. On appeal, defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation of his probation. We disagree and affirm.\nAt the hearing to revoke probation, Officer Estes of the Champaign police testified that he was dispatched to Oseo Drug on Green Street in Champaign at 8:50 a.m. in response to the defendant\u2019s request for police assistance because he believed he was being followed. Officer Estes was familiar with the defendant from prior dealings \u2014 he believed him to be mentally unstable and knew he had a criminal history. When Estes arrived at Osco\u2019s parking lot, defendant was standing in front of the store. As defendant approached the squad car, Estes noticed that defendant\u2019s shirt was untucked and there appeared to be bulges in his pants pockets. Estes told defendant he wanted to pat him down for weapons. In defendant\u2019s left pocket he felt a three- to four-inch hard object which Estes discovered was a brass owl figurine. The figurine contained two price tags on the bottom, neither of which indicated the owl came from Oseo. There were various papers and other items in defendant\u2019s pocket but no receipt for purchase of the owl. Estes asked defendant if he had stolen the owl from Oseo and defendant told him he had. Estes went inside Oseo to see if the manager wanted to press charges. When he returned he placed defendant under arrest. The trial court found the State had sustained its burden of proving the petition for revocation of probation by a preponderance of the evidence and sentenced defendant to three years\u2019 imprisonment with credit for 24 days served.\nDefendant argues that the State did not prove that defendant had committed theft, noting that the only evidence of that crime was defendant\u2019s confession. Defendant cites the long-existing rule that an extrajudicial confession or admission of the accused is alone insufficient to sustain a conviction, which must be corroborated by some evidence, exclusive of the confession, tending to show that a crime, or the corpus delicti, did occur. Bergen v. People, 17 Ill. 426, 428-29 (1856); People v. Willingham, 89 Ill. 2d 352, 358, 432 N.E.2d 861, 864 (1982). Defendant points out that the offense of theft is proved by establishing that a person knowingly exerted unauthorized control over property of the owner (720 ILCS 5/16 \u2014 1(a) (West 1992)) and no evidence of Osco\u2019s ownership of the owl figurine has been shown.\nThe State contends that the owl figurine itself is corroborating evidence of the facts contained in the confession and that it may be considered along with the confession in establishing the corpus delicti. The State analogizes the facts in this case to People v. Matthews, 165 Ill. App. 3d 342, 519 N.E.2d 126 (1988), a case involving revocation of probation, wherein a security guard for a retail store testified that he saw the defendant put on a coat and leave the store without paying for it. While noting that the State\u2019s evidence was \"thin,\u201d this court found the evidence indicated it was more probably true than not that defendant committed retail theft. Matthews, 165 Ill. App. 3d at 345, 519 N.E.2d at 128-29. That case, however, involved the question of whether there was sufficient evidence to show a crime had been committed by defendant and not whether a voluntary confession requires corroboration in a revocation of probation proceeding. Our research has disclosed no cases wherein the corpus delicti rule has been applied in anything other than criminal proceedings and its application to probation revocation cases is an issue of first impression in this State. See In re R.D., 178 Ill. App. 3d 681, 685, 533 N.E.2d 1121, 1124 (1989) (court did not decide whether the defendant\u2019s extrajudicial admissions alone would satisfy a preponderance of the evidence since other evidence corroborated the admissions).\nA probation revocation proceeding is not a criminal adjudication of the defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence (People v. Allegri, 109 Ill. 2d 309, 313, 487 N.E.2d 606, 607 (1985)), and the defendant need not be indicted, prosecuted, or convicted of the offense supporting the petition for revocation (People v. Burkett, 19 Ill. App. 3d 410, 412, 311 N.E.2d 748, 750 (1974)). Rather, probation revocation is in the nature of a civil proceeding arising in the wake of a previous conviction and sentence of probation, and it is the violation of the previously imposed conditions of probation, and not the commission of a culpable offense, which must be proved. Proof of a violation of probation need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 6 \u2014 4(c) (West 1992)), and the trial court\u2019s finding will not be disturbed unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence (People v. Houston, 118 Ill. 2d 194, 199, 514 N.E.2d 989, 992 (1987)).\nOther jurisdictions have addressed the use of admissions or confessions in probation revocation proceedings. In both State v. Sanchez, 109 N.M. App. 718, 720, 790 P.2d 515, 517 (1990), and Commonwealth v. Kavanaugh, 334 Pa. Super. 151, 162, 482 A.2d 1128, 1133 (1984), the New Mexico and Pennsylvania courts expressly held the corpus delicti rule inapplicable in cases of probation revocation proceedings. Other courts have found the defendant\u2019s confession to a crime or admissions of probation violations were alone sufficient to support revocation of probation. See Smith v. State, 504 N.E.2d 333, 334 (Ind. App. 1987); State ex rel. Russell v. McGlothin, 427 So. 2d 280, 282 (Fla. App. 1983); McQueen v. State, 740 P.2d 744, 745 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).\nWe agree with the decisions of these other jurisdictions. The corpus delicti rule pertains to the substantive proof requisite in a criminal proceeding. It has no application in probation revocation proceedings and a trial court may revoke a defendant\u2019s probation based solely on defendant\u2019s voluntary confession or reliable extrajudicial admission that he violated the conditions of his probation. In view of our holding, we conclude the defendant\u2019s confession to theft of the owl figurine was sufficient evidence to support revocation and the trial court\u2019s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nAffirmed.\nSTEIGMANN and GARMAN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE McCULLOUGH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel D. Yuhas and Michele A. Knapp (argued), both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "John C. Piland, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, James Majors (argued), and James L. Overholt, all 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. WARREN WOZNICK, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4 \u2014 95 \u2014 0204\nArgued January 23, 1996.\nOpinion filed March 22, 1996.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and Michele A. Knapp (argued), both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nJohn C. Piland, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, James Majors (argued), and James L. Overholt, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0826-01",
  "first_page_order": 844,
  "last_page_order": 847
}