{ "id": 2500363, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Sims, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Sims", "decision_date": "1975-06-05", "docket_number": "No. 60104", "first_page": "815", "last_page": "819", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "29 Ill. App. 3d 815" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "302 N.E.2d 713", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 Ill.App.3d 407", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2687446 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/14/0407-01" ] }, { "cite": "234 N.E.2d 161", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 Ill.App.2d 388", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2898205 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/90/0388-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 U.S. 922", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6182659, 6183050, 6181741, 6182447, 6182833, 6181909, 6182200, 6182042 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/362/0662-06", "/us/362/0662-08", "/us/362/0662-01", "/us/362/0662-05", "/us/362/0662-07", "/us/362/0662-02", "/us/362/0662-04", "/us/362/0662-03" ] }, { "cite": "160 N.E.2d 779", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "17 Ill.2d 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5333250 ], "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/17/0112-01" ] }, { "cite": "323 N.E.2d 48", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 Ill.App.3d 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2702941 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/25/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "276 N.E.2d 360", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 Ill.App.3d 319", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2748896 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/2/0319-01" ] }, { "cite": "260 N.E.2d 251", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 Ill.App.2d 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1578876 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/124/0280-01" ] }, { "cite": "220 N.E.2d 447", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 Ill.2d 219", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5378774 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/35/0219-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 N.E.2d 787", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 Ill.2d 491", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2897056 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/45/0491-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Ill.2d 91", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2703636 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/5/0091-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 N.E. 608", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 Ill. 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5296125 ], "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/352/0380-01" ] }, { "cite": "216 N.E.2d 212", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 Ill.App.2d 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2594645 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/68/0369-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 N.E.2d 309", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1 Ill.App.3d 876", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5315785 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/1/0876-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 514, "char_count": 7879, "ocr_confidence": 0.735, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.2852889576611447e-07, "percentile": 0.7856309383288369 }, "sha256": "6481a83a4446e973b4d1adc3d97a681fdae3e6a5bb7e088b7c8179379b242dab", "simhash": "1:2d24f82d2bc6f2cf", "word_count": 1315 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:27:57.823802+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. Marvin Sims, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DEMPSEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant Marvin Sims was arrested for shoplifting at a Jewel Food Store located at 1812 West 59th Street, Chicago. He waived a jury, was convicted of theft and was sentenced to 6 months\u2019 probation. He contends on appeal that the State failed to prove the corporate existence of the Jewel Food Store and that there was no proof that he intended to permanently deprive tire store of the property he was accused of taking.\nOn November 14, 1973, at about 1:30 in the afternoon, Carlton Pittman, an off-duty policeman who worked as a security officer at the Jewel store, saw Sims, who was about 10 feet away, fold articles of children\u2019s clothing and stuff them into the waistband of his open pants. Sims saw Pittman coming toward him and took the wadded clothes out of his pants. Pittman picked these up and led Sims to a back room of the store. The store manager joined them there. Sims had placed six children\u2019s playsuits valued at $30.54 inside his trousers. Each suit was marked with a merchandise ticket that showed its price and Jewel\u2019s ownership.\nAt the beginning of the trial the assistant State\u2019s Attorney was granted leave of court to amend the complaint to state that Jewel Food was a c\u00f3rporation licensed to do business in Illinois. Pittman, the only witness for the State, made frequent references to Jewel Food Stores but he was not asked about Jewel\u2019s corporate existence.\nTheft is the taking of property without the owner\u2019s consent. Ownership of some form of possessory interest in someone other than tire defendant is an essential element of the offense and must be alleged and proved. (People v. Roach (1971), 1 Ill.App.3d 876, 275 N.E.2d 309.) The theft must be from an entity legaUy capable of owning property. (People v. Hill (1966), 68 Ill.App.2d 369, 216 N.E.2d 212.) If the ownership of the property is aUeged to be in a corporation, the legal existence of the corporation is a material fact and must be proven. (People v. Cohen (1933), 352 Ill. 380, 185 N.E. 608; People v. Gordon (1955), 5 Ill.2d 91, 125 M.E.2d 73.) One of the purposes of the requirement is to adequately inform the defendant of the charges against him and to protect him from possible double jeopardy. People v. Whittaker (1970), 45 Ill.2d 491, 259 N.E.2d 787.\nHowever, the prescriptions formerly associated with proof of a corporation\u2019s existence are no longer required. In People v. McGuire (1966), 35 Ill.2d 219, 220 N.E.2d 447, the court dispensed with the need to introduce into evidence the corporation\u2019s charter in order to establish that there was a corporation. This time-honored method of proof was dismissed as a ritualistic concern with empty formalities. The court held that the corporate existence could be proven by the direct oral testimony of a person with knowledge of that fact. There have been further relaxations. Where no direct oral testimony is elicited, proof of corporate existence has been permitted in various other ways. In People v. Nelson (1970), 124 Ill.App.2d 280, 260 N.E.2d 251, there were references throughout the trial to \u201cSears,\u201d \u201cSears and Roebuck,\u201d \u201cSears Corporation,\u201d \u201cSears warehouse,\u201d \u201cSears Distribution Center at 2065 George Street in Melrose Park\u201d and \u201cSears property.\u201d The references were held to constitute sufficient proof of the corporate existence and ownership of the burglarized premises of Sears Roebuck & Co. In People v. Childress (1971), 2 Ill.App.3d 319, 276 N.E.2d 360, the court held that there was evidence of the corporate existence of a Thom McAn shoe store because of references to Thom McAn products and testimony that a company auditor would conduct an inventory. The court said the word \u201ccompany\u201d connoted a corporate existence. Likewise, in People v. Geraci (1974), 25 Ill.App.3d 191, 323 N.E.2d 48, a complaining witness testified that she was employed by Jewel, Incorporated, a corporation licensed to do business in the State of Illinois. However, the theft took place in a Tumstyle Family Store, a division of Jewel. There was no direct testimony about the relationship between Jewel and Tumstyle. Despite the lack of direct testimony, the court held that ownership was alleged and proven to be in one other than the defendant and affirmed the conviction for theft.\nA Jewel Food Store is not an obscure neighborhood grocery. It is a unity in a well-known chain of supermarkets in the Chicagoland area. Any Illinois judge could take judicial notice that the Jewel company has a corporate make-up and is an entity capable of owning property. In this nonjury trial, the Jewel store was referred to as the owner of the articles Sims removed from a counter and concealed on his person. A tag bearing the Jewel name was on each playsuit. There was no contention that the merchandise was not the property of Jewel and in his testimony Sims acknowleged as much. He was in no way prejudiced by the prosecution\u2019s neglect to formally prove that the store was owned by a corporation and his counsel did not object to the failure during or after the trial. Sims was adequately informed of the charge against him and is fully protected from double jeopardy. The complaint, as amended on its face, alleged that Jewel was an Illinois corporation and specifically apprised him of the name and address of the store and the date its property was stolen. Sims has the complaint, the transcript of the trial and the opinion of this court to shield him from a second prosecution for the same offense. He was accused and proven guilty of stealing merchandise that was owned by someone other than him, and to reverse his conviction for an unprejudicial failure of proof would be elevating form over substance and would be promoting a minor irregularity into a major defect affecting a substantial right. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 110A, par. 615(a).) In line with the sentiment expressed in People v. Hill (1959), 17 Ill.2d 112, 160 N.E.2d 779, cert. denied (1960), 362 U.S. 922, and iterated in People v. McGuire favoring an interest in the significant rights of litigants over ritualistic concern with empty formalities, we hold that there was sufficient proof before the court to sataisfy the material allegations in the complaint.\nThe defense at the trial was that the State failed to prove that Sims actually intended to permanently deprive the Jewel store of the items of clothing because he was apprehended before he had an opportunity to pay for them. The total value of the items was $30.54 and Sims had only $1 on his person when arrested. The trial court determined that the merchandise had been stuffed into the defendant\u2019s trousers before he was apprehended and that the theft had been accomplished. A person commits theft when he knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over property of the owner and intends to deprive the owner permanently of the use or benefit of the property. (People v. Smith (1967), 90 Ill.App.2d 388, 234 N.E.2d 161; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 16\u20141(a)(1).) In a trial for theft, intent may and often must be proved by the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged criminal act. (People v. Ida (1973), 14 Ill.App.3d 407, 302 N.E.2d 713.) The circumstances at the time of the defendant\u2019s apprehension, his open trousers and the store\u2019s merchandise inserted inside them could only signify an intent to steal.\nThe decision of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMgNAMARA and MEJDA, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DEMPSEY" } ], "attorneys": [ "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Thomas F. Finegan, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.", "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Robert Handelsman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Sims, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 60104;\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nJune 5, 1975.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Thomas F. Finegan, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Robert Handelsman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0815-01", "first_page_order": 839, "last_page_order": 843 }