{
  "id": 5411932,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Taylor, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Taylor",
  "decision_date": "1975-04-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 60334",
  "first_page": "186",
  "last_page": "188",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 Ill. App. 3d 186"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "36 N.E.2d 563",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "377 Ill. 424",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2546968
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/377/0424-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.E. 2d 738",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 Ill.App.2d 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2551438
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/85/0435-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 361,
    "char_count": 5489,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.761,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1341590913992769e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5768732076657751
    },
    "sha256": "93e2c85c0b13f58a76a92a3aca439ee71b98e4aa0787f21933ab461002aa3003",
    "simhash": "1:b8643e386f20f567",
    "word_count": 923
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:05.902616+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. Willie Taylor, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE ADESKO\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Willie Taylor, was found guilty in a bench trial of carrying a concealed weapon and was sentenced to the Department of Corrections for 90 days. On appeal defendant contends he was not properly convicted of carrying a concealed weapon when the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the act did not occur in the defendant\u2019s abode.\nOn March 29, 1973, Alvia Maxwell, a Chicago policeman, received a message over his car radio to proceed to 6955 S. Normal. One Juanita Hope was the complainant. When Maxwell arrived, Juanita\u2019s son led him upstairs. Upon entering the apartment, Maxwell found defendant asleep on a couch. Officer Maxwell asked defendant if he had a gun. Upon receiving an affirmative response, the officer reached into defendant\u2019s pocket and removed the weapon. The tenant at 6955 S. Normal was Marie Thomas, a girlfriend of the defendant.\nDefendant contends on appeal that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not in his own abode at the time of the occurrence.\nSection 24 \u2014 1(a) of the Criminal Code states:\n\u201c(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly: * * * (4) Carries concealed in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver or other firearm; * # Ill. Rev. Stat., 1969, ch. 38, par. 24 \u2014 1 (a)(4).\nNecessary to our determination in this case is an inquiry into the meaning of the word \u201cabode\u201d as used in the statute. Defendant contends that abode should be defined as an individual\u2019s own living quarters, \u201chowever transient they may be.\u201d The State counters that \u201cabode\u201d should be equated with \u201cdwelling\u201d or \u201cresidence.\u201d We know of no Illinois case wherein \u201cabode\u201d as used in the criminal statute has been defined. It is well settled that words used in statutes should be given their plain and ordinary meaning so long as such a construction is in conformity with the intent of the legislature. (People v. Kraft, 85 Ill.App.2d 435, 228 N.E. 2d 738.) We believe \u201cabode\u201d as used in section 24 \u2014 1(a)(4) was intended by our legislature to exempt from the statutory prohibition an individual in his overnight living quarters. If the legislative intent had been to exempt an individual while in his \u201cdwelling\u201d or \u201cresidence,\u201d such language would have been used. In fact, \u201cdwelling\u201d is clearly defined in section 2 \u2014 6 of the Criminal Code. The legislature would not clearly define a term, only later to use a synonym for it. As for the term \u201cresidence,\u201d it has been construed by the Illinois Supreme Court, as used in an election statute, to be the equivalent of the term \u201cpermanent abode.\u201d (Clark v. Quick, 377 Ill. 424, 36 N.E.2d 563.) We believe that if \u201cabode\u201d and \u201cresidence\u201d were intended to be equivalent terms, the legislature would have used \u201cpermanent\u201d or \u201cfixed\u201d before the term \u201cabode.\u201d Furthermore, section 24 \u2014 1(a)(4) provides as an additional statutory exemption, an individual\u2019s \u201cfixed place of business.\u201d The clear inference is that the legislature would have used \u201cfixed abode\u201d or \u201cpermanent abode\u201d if \u201cresidence\u201d were an intended synonym.\nDefendant contends that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not fall within the statutory exemption. It is axiomatic that the State must prove all essential facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, it is well settled that we wiH not disturb the findings of the trier of fact and substitute our own conclusions unless the proof is so unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of defendant\u2019s guilt. After a careful examination of the record, we cannot say that the conclusion of the trial court is warranted.\nOn direct examination defendant, Willie Taylor, testified that at the time of his arrest, he was living at 6955 S. Normal the place of the occurrence. On cross-examination of the defendant, the transcript reveals the following:\n\u201cQ. Did you live in that apartment at 6955 South Normal?\nA. Well, off and on, yes, I had because I had clothes there.\nQ. You had no other place where you had any other of your own goods?\nA. No.\u201d\nTaylor\u2019s testimony on this point was never impeached. Officer Maxwell testified that he did not check to see if Taylor\u2019s clothes were in the apartment. Officer Maxwell did testify that the defendant, when asked if he lived at 6955 S. Normal, responded that he did not. The officer further testified that when he asked the defendant where he lived the defendant responded that it was \u201c10455 S. Maryland.\u201d This court believes that when a citizen is asked where he lives by a police officer, a reasonable response by the citizen would be his permanent address. An individual may maintain one address and stay at another. The State presented no other evidence going to the question of whether defendant was in his abode at the time of his arrest.\nThe decision of the trial court must therefore be reversed.\nJudgment reversed.\nDIERINGER, P. J\u201e and JOHNSON, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE ADESKO"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Gail Moreland and Ronald P. Alwin, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Rea Markin, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Taylor, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 60334;\nFirst District (4th Division)\nApril 23, 1975.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Gail Moreland and Ronald P. Alwin, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Rea Markin, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0186-01",
  "first_page_order": 210,
  "last_page_order": 212
}