{
  "id": 2795757,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Rogers, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Rogers",
  "decision_date": "1975-10-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 12845",
  "first_page": "788",
  "last_page": "791",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "32 Ill. App. 3d 788"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "237 N.E.2d 697",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill.2d 4",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2857846
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/40/0004-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N.E.2d 444",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 Ill.2d 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2839521
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/32/0502-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.E2d 205",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 Ill.App.2d 457",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2537503
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/95/0457-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.E.2d 378",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Ill.2d 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2907564
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/48/0056-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 N.E.2d 37",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 Ill.App.3d 240",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5407791
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/28/0240-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 364,
    "char_count": 4807,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.734,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.5956738556730717e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8874606202909899
    },
    "sha256": "79e5fe71f9e785240b666da2c61a574b663f1116ef5cb128802b278bc931deff",
    "simhash": "1:4f5b36967336ce46",
    "word_count": 773
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:14:58.460223+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. John Rogers, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SIMKINS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:'\nDefendant appeals from his conviction by a jmy of the offense of burglary and from a sentence imposed of two to six years\u2019 imprisonment. We affirm.\nDefendant argues two grounds for reversal, one, an instruction issue, the second a question of reasonable doubt.\nDefendant urges that it was error for the trial court to refuse to give the final paragraph of IPI Criminal 3.02, which states:\n\u201cYou should not find the defendant guilty unless the facts and circumst\u00e1nces proved exclude every reasonable theory of innocence.\u201d\nThe trial court\u2019s reason for the refusal was that the evidence was not entirely circumstantial. The alleged error was not mentioned in defendant\u2019s written post-trial motion. In such a case the objection is to be considered waived. (People v. Lipscomb, 28 Ill.App.3d 240, 328 N.E.2d 37.) Defendant argues that the alleged error was preserved by this statement in his post-trial motion:\n\u201c11. That the defendant, by counsel, presents this motion in order to comply with the provisions of the statute providing for the same and to give the court the opportunity to correct errors. In presenting this motion, the defendant also seeks relief, as though he had presented a general oral motion for post-trial relief, and as he is not in possession of a transcript of the trial proceedings and is unable to specify error that occurred, he hereby presents any and all errors, and requests relief from this court, or if denied, then from the courts on review.\u201d\nIf such a request truly did preserve all errors, the rationale behind post-trial motions would be destroyed. In addition, this alleged error was certainly known to trial counsel without a transcript since he objected at the instruction conference and tendered his own instruction which was marked refused by the trial court.\nDefendant also argues that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This argument is clearly without merit.\nDefendant was positively identified by an eyewitness. The eyewitness testified that he observed defendant and another, at 6 o\u2019clock in the morning, at the Craft Texaco lot. He heard glass breaking and observed one of the persons duck inside the station. The other individual, positively identified as defendant, he observed walking around the area and watching closely. At one point defendant hollered into the station for the other to hurry up.\nTire eyewitness, stationed in a phone booth 50 to 75 feet away, testified he observed defendant for 15 minutes, from all angles. The witness also testified extensively as to the lighting conditions.\nThe identification is attacked on the basis of some discrepancies between the witness\u2019s description to the police and defendant\u2019s actual description. The majority of the description was highly accurate. However, the witness did not notice a thin goatee. It is well established that such a minor discrepancy does not render an identification vague or uncertain. People v. Catlett, 48 Ill.2d 56, 268 N.E.2d 378.\nOther discrepancies were that the eyewitness described defendant\u2019s coat as dark brown, whereas another witness said it was light brown and that the glasses were described as dark-rimmed rather than wire-rimmed. These are factors for the jury to consider when deciding what weight to give to the identification but fall far short of raising a question of reasonable doubt. (See People v. Martin, 95 Ill.App.2d 457, 238 N.E2d 205.\nDefendant also alleges that the lighting conditions were inadequate to make an identification. Clearly the weight to be attached to the identification is a question for the jury. The conditions were not so inadequate as to present the question of reasonable doubt. See People v. Cullotta, 32 Ill.2d 502, 207 N.E.2d 444.\nThe evidence, if believed by the jury, was more than sufficient to prove defendant was not merely a bystander but an aider and abettor. The eyewitness testified he saw defendant standing with another when the other entered the closed gas station. Defendant spent the next 15 minutes walking around the perimeter and watching. He yelled encouragement to the person inside. Together with that person he fled when the police arrived. This evidence is not so improbable as to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt. People v. Mills, 40 Ill.2d 4, 237 N.E.2d 697.\nJudgment affirmed.\nGREEN and CRAVEN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SIMKINS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard J. Wilson and Richard J. Geddes, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Paul R. Welch, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (G. Michael Prall and Robert C. Perry, both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Rogers, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 12845;\nFourth District\nOctober 16, 1975.\nRichard J. Wilson and Richard J. Geddes, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nPaul R. Welch, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (G. Michael Prall and Robert C. Perry, both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0788-01",
  "first_page_order": 814,
  "last_page_order": 817
}