{ "id": 3310813, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAN ANTHONY RANCE, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Rance", "decision_date": "1979-02-02", "docket_number": "No. 78-212", "first_page": "639", "last_page": "649", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "68 Ill. App. 3d 639" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "98 S. Ct. 1513", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 L. Ed. 2d 533", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "435 U.S. 937", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3106, 3091, 2397 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/435/0937-02", "/us/435/0937-01", "/us/435/0937-03" ] }, { "cite": "367 N.E.2d 1313", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Ill. 2d 564", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5811071 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/67/0564-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 N.E.2d 291", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "66 Ill. 2d 346", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5464792 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/66/0346-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 S. Ct. 1681", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 L. Ed. 2d 706", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "373 U.S. 951", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11737388, 11737166, 11737455, 11737072, 11737239 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/373/0951-04", "/us/373/0951-02", "/us/373/0951-05", "/us/373/0951-01", "/us/373/0951-03" ] }, { "cite": "187 N.E.2d 236", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 Ill. 2d 464", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5356962 ], "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "469" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/26/0464-01" ] }, { "cite": "344 N.E.2d 724", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 Ill. App. 3d 761", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2634277 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/36/0761-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.E.2d 1062", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 Ill. App. 3d 567", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2897588 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/45/0567-01" ] }, { "cite": "334 N.E.2d 347", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Ill. App. 3d 724", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2708862 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/31/0724-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 N.E.2d 19", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "21" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ill. 2d 461", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5405143 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "465" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/56/0461-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 N.E.2d 28", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 Ill. 2d 175", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2761550 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/16/0175-01" ] }, { "cite": "334 N.E.2d 885", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Ill. App. 3d 825", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2709624 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/31/0825-01" ] }, { "cite": "331 N.E.2d 178", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "180" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 Ill. App. 3d 815", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2500363 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "818" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/29/0815-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 S. Ct. 2730", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 L. Ed. 2d 144", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "412 U.S. 918", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6196194, 6197987, 6196411, 6196635, 6197557, 6196885, 6197787, 6197338, 6197115 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/412/0918-01", "/us/412/0918-09", "/us/412/0918-02", "/us/412/0918-03", "/us/412/0918-07", "/us/412/0918-04", "/us/412/0918-08", "/us/412/0918-06", "/us/412/0918-05" ] }, { "cite": "286 N.E.2d 613", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "617" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "6 Ill. App. 3d 1066", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2468888 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1071" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/6/1066-01" ] }, { "cite": "377 N.E.2d 207", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "209" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 Ill. App. 3d 650", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3353544 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "652" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/60/0650-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 N.E.2d 737", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 Ill. App. 2d 279", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2598515 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/57/0279-01" ] }, { "cite": "287 N.E.2d 206", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "7 Ill. App. 3d 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2671645 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/7/0183-01" ] }, { "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" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1035, "char_count": 25155, "ocr_confidence": 0.862, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.908848447734809e-08, "percentile": 0.4198806571348368 }, "sha256": "3efaa5be7870a27ec4aed0fb37643d01622fea9cbe4c7487618a2b2b618422cc", "simhash": "1:06ad68cf0fc3bb43", "word_count": 4327 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:49:10.381789+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. DAN ANTHONY RANCE, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE LORENZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a jury trial, defendant was convicted of theft and conspiracy. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, pars. 16 \u2014 1 and 8 \u2014 2(a).) The trial court vacated the conspiracy conviction but sentenced defendant to four years\u2019 probation for theft, the first year to be served in periodic imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends that the alleged corporate existence of the theft victim was not proven, that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to vacate the jury\u2019s verdict, and that he was not proven guilty of theft beyond a reasonable doubt.\nThe following pertinent evidence was adduced at trial.\nAlan James Anderson\nHe works for CNA Insurance, and from mid-1973 to the end of 1975 was manager of the general group claims department. Claims processing by that department would begin when an insured sent in a claim and supporting documentation. Either the name on the claim or its number would be checked to determine that the claimant was a member of an insured group. The claim and a relevant claim file were then given to the appropriate claim adjuster, who would determine the amount, if any, of payable benefits, would complete a form authorizing such payments, and would give this form to a typist who would prepare a draft for the indicated amount. The draft would then go to a draft signer who would verify it for correctness and, if correct, authorize it by signature. The draft would then consist of the original and four carbon copies. The original and the last copy would be sent to the payee. The third copy is mailed to the payee\u2019s employer. The second copy would become part of the claim file, and the first copy, which was blue, would be for data processing. From mid-1973 to mid-1974, the group claims draft typists were Andrea Austin, Karen Kasmark and Angelique Woods. The draft signer was Joyce Mitchell. Defendant Dan Anthony Ranee was one of the department\u2019s claim adjusters, and had access to all claim files in the storage area.\nOn cross-examination he acknowledged that there were 13 or 14 claim adjusters, that draft typists were not assigned to any particular adjuster, and that all of the department\u2019s employees had access to the claim file room.\nOliver T. Pearson\nHe works for CNA Insurance and in August of 1974 was the supervisor of the lost draft control department. Drafts were paid by a process involving a daily acceptance of drafts from the Harris Trust Bank. CNA checked the drafts, and authorized payment on those which have the correct draft signer\u2019s signature and endorsement. CNA authorizes Harris Trust to pay drafts which are found to be in order and returns unaccepted drafts to the bank.\nJoyce Mitchell\nShe works for CNA Insurance Company and in December of 1973 was the draft signer in general group claims. She knew defendant Dan Anthony Ranee to be one of group claims\u2019 adjusters, and Angelique Woods to be a draft typist. She corroborated Alan Anderson\u2019s account of how drafts were prepared and how many copies were kept. The blue processing copy would go to her desk. Blank draft forms were kept in an unlocked cabinet which all draft typists had access to. Her standard procedure is to count the number of blue copies on her desk every night before she leaves work, and to recount them the following morning. On the evening of June 10, 1974, she had 181 blue copies on her desk, while on the following morning, June 11, she had 186 blue copies. She checked through the copies and found the five extra ones. Those five all lacked the insured\u2019s address, were typed in a type face bigger than the one normally used and bore the name \u201cJoyce Mitchell\u201d in a signature which was not her handwriting. She had not authorized anyone to sign her signature. She gave these five copies to Ann Evans, her supervisor. She identified an additional 36 documents as CNA drafts that bore the signature \u201cJoyce Mitchell.\u201d That signature was not her own, and she did not authorize anyone else to sign her name for her.\nOn- cross-examination she admitted that she knew Dan Anthony Ranee was an ordained minister and that she used to see him in church every Sunday. She acknowledged that she never saw Ranee with any of the documents she testified to, and that she never saw him sign her name.\nFrank D. Arion\nIn 1974 he was an internal auditor for CNA Insurance. On June 11, 1974, he was instructed to check whether any fraudulent drafts had been issued out of the group claims department. He subsequently talked to Joyce Mitchell and was shown the five blue copies of drafts which she testified to. He checked and could not find any files for those five claims, and he stopped payment on them. He inspected the file of drafts that had already been paid. In the file for Janitor\u2019s Local No. 1 he found 20 paid drafts which had been issued from April through June 1974. He checked and found that Janitor\u2019s Local No. l\u2019s insurance policy had been cancelled as of February 1,1974. He could not find any claim forms, doctor bills or other documentation of claims for those 20 drafts. From June 11, 1974, until sometime in August, he found a total of 36 drafts for which he could not find claim files documentation.\nOn cross-examination he explained that because Janitor\u2019s Local No. l\u2019s policy was cancelled on February 1,1974, CNA would continue to pay claims that occurred before that date, even if they arrived late, but would not pay any claims that occurred afterward.\nAll parties stipulated that if the payees named on the CNA drafts previously referred to were called, they would testify that they never received any part of the proceeds paid under said drafts, that they never submitted claims for the amounts indicated thereon, and that the signatures endorsed on the backs of those drafts are not theirs, and were placed thereon by someone without lawful authority to do so.\nAngelique Renee Woods\nShe currently is a member of the United States Army and is stationed in Germany. In December of 1973 she worked as a typist in the group claims department of \u201cC & A Insurance Company.\u201d Her work consisted mostly of typing draft forms, approximately 30 to 40 a day, each of which consisted of an original and four copies. She typed on the draft certain information regarding the payee which she got from a claim file that a claim adjuster would bring to her. Blank drafts were kept on the table in front of each typist. She knew Joyce Mitchell, who would look drafts over, check them, and then sign them. She also knew defendant Dan Anthony Ranee, who worked near her in the group claims department.\nOne morning in the middle of December, 1973, Ranee asked her to do him a favor and type up some drafts, and give them to him instead of to Joyce. He told her she would get money for doing it. Subsequently, one morning in the middle of January, Ranee brought about five claim files to her desk. He wanted her to type up drafts based on the information in those files. She did this and took the drafts to Ranee\u2019s desk, stating that there were corrections to be made on them. Ranee telephoned her one evening and asked her how much she wanted for typing up the drafts. She said that she wanted *175 for each draft over *1000. They agreed on that amount and that she would be paid\" as soon as the money came in. She met Ranee after work sometime in mid-January in the lobby of the CNA building, and he gave her an envelope containing *75 to *100 in cash. At the end of January or beginning of February she typed up about five more drafts from files Ranee brought her. At the end of February she called him and asked when she was going to be paid. He said he would pay her when it came in. He also told her that the blue copies had to go \u201cinto the system\u201d and that she would have to insert them into Joyce\u2019s pile. At the end of February or beginning of March, Ranee brought her five to seven more files for which she again prepared drafts. At this time she began to place the blue copies on Joyce Mitchell\u2019s desk. She did this one morning at approximately 7 a.m. by getting the blue copies, which Ranee kept in a magazine in the bottom drawer on the right hand side of his desk, and placing them with Joyce Mitchell\u2019s other copies. In the middle of March Ranee brought her another five to eight claim files. She typed drafts for these and, early in the morning a day or two later, placed the blue copies on Joyce Mitchell\u2019s desk. She estimated that from January through March of 1974 she typed between 25 and 30 drafts in the names she described, and placed blue copies for \u201cabout all of them\u201d on Joyce Mitchell\u2019s desk. At the end of March she talked to defendant on the phone. She asked him about being paid, and he told her she would be paid \u201cas soon as the runner came through.\u201d He also told her that he didn\u2019t want her to type any more drafts for him, and asked her to get him some blank draft forms. She later gave him between 10 and 15 blank draft forms. Between January and the end of March, 1974, she received money from Ranee no more than four times, and received a total of *1,000. She identified 25 drafts which she typed for Ranee as described, and which she recognized by the typeface which was from her typewriter. The drafts were not in the same condition as they were when she gave them to Ranee, since each draft contained Joyce Mitchell\u2019s signature on the front, and a signature and bank stamp on the back. She identified 11 more drafts as ones she did not type because they were prepared in June, while she stopped typing for Ranee at the end of March, and because the typeface on them was larger than the one on her typewriter. She received blue copies from Ranee after March 1974 and placed them on Joyce Mitchell\u2019s desk.\nOn cross-examination she admitted that Assistant State\u2019s Attorney Edward Berman told her that if she would come forward willingly, they would not prosecute. She acknowledged that the State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s Office paid her fare to come from Atlanta to Chicago and testify, and was paying for her room rent and meals. She acknowledged that she typed drafts only under the Janitor\u2019s Local No. 1 policy, and said that a draft from another policy was typed on her typewriter, but was not typed by her. She estimated that for drafts under *1,000 Ranee was to pay her *25 or *50. She admitted that she testified before a grand jury on March 11,1976, and stated then that she was to be paid *125 to *250 for each draft depending on the draft\u2019s amount. She acknowledged that as of March 1974 Ranee owed her several thousand dollars, which he did not pay her. She conceded that in a statement made July 29, 1974, she characterized Ranee\u2019s debt to her as \u201cover four hundred dollars.\u201d She stated that Ranee paid her on four occasions although she then conceded that in her statement of July 29, 1974, she said that he paid her \u201cabout eight times.\u201d She admitted that she never saw any of the drafts she typed in Ranee\u2019s hands. She acknowledged that she was to be paid some extra unagreed upon amount for inserting the blue copies on Joyce Mitchell\u2019s desk, but she never received that amount. She stated that Ranee never paid her at her house, but then conceded that on October 15, 1974, she told an investigator from the Illinois Bureau of Investigation that he paid her once at her house.\nIt was stipulated that if Fern Henderson of the Tri-State Bank and James Digby of the Guaranty Bank and Trust Company were called they would testify that a number of the CNA drafts previously testified to were deposited into bank accounts under the names of LeRoy Palmer and Charles E. McDonald.\nFor the Defense\nCharles E. McDonald\nHe never saw Ranee before these court proceedings began.\nFrank Glover, Azelle Carter, ]r. and Butler R. Stapleton\nThey have all known Dan Anthony Ranee for a number of years and know his reputation in the community for truth, honesty, veracity and integrity to be excellent. Carter testified during the incident in question, he worked for CNA Association, which is a parent company of CNA Insurance Company.\nDefendant Dan Anthony Ranee on his own behalf\nIn mid-1973 he was employed as a claim adjustor trainee in the group claims department of CNA Insurance Company. While working there he knew Angelique Woods and Joyce Mitchell. He never worked on the Janitor\u2019s Union account and he never asked Angelique Woods to prepare any claim drafts for the Janitor\u2019s Union files. He examined the 36 CNA drafts previously testified to, and stated that he had never seen them before they were shown to him either at CNA in June 1974 or at trial, and that he never received any proceeds from them. He never signed the name \u201cJoyce Mitchell\u201d to any of those drafts. He never asked Angelique Woods to type some claim drafts for him and return them to him instead of to Joyce Mitchell. He never gave Woods any money or visited her apartment. He did not know about blue slips of drafts because it wasn\u2019t in his department. He never left any of the blue slips in his drawer for Woods to pick up, and he never asked her to insert some blue slips into the stack on Joyce Mitchell\u2019s desk. He never asked Woods to give him some blank claim drafts and he never received any from her. He did not commit theft or conspire to commit theft against CNA Insurance Company from December 1973 to July 1974.\nOn cross-examination he stated that he is an ordained minister in the Baptist, Spiritualist and Science of Mind Metaphysic denominations. He admitted that during his work at CNA he had seen completed drafts intact with their copies, and that he regularly assisted typists in completing correct drafts.\nOpinion\nDefendant first contends that the State failed to prove the existence of the victim named in the indictment, which charged him with the theft of property \u201cof CNA Insurance, a corporation.\u201d He first points out that where the owner of stolen property is a corporation, the legal existence of the corporation is a material fact which must be proven. (People v. Geraci (1974), 25 Ill. App. 3d 191, 323 N.E.2d 48.) He argues that this requirement was not met, because no oral testimony was presented to prove CNA Insurance's corporate status. We note that although direct evidence as to CNA Insurance's corporate status was not adduced, Joyce Mitchell, whose name was forged on the stolen drafts, testified at trial that she worked for \u201cCNA Insurance Company.\" Angelique Woods testified that she typed many of the improper drafts, and also testified that she worked for \u201cC & A [sic] Insurance Company.\u201d Defendant himself, testifying on his own behalf, stated that he worked with Mitchell and Woods at \u201cCNA Insurance Company\u201d and acknowledged familiarity with CNA insurance drafts. Although he specifically denied committing the crime charged, defendant's own testimony clearly tended to establish that the State had met its burden of informing defendant of the charge against him and establishing that CNA Insurance Company was the owner of the drafts in question. (See People v. Jones (1972), 7 Ill. App. 3d 183, 287 N.E.2d 206.) Moreover, we have previously noted that under section 9 of the Business Corporation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 32, par. 157.9(a)), the word \u201ccompany\u201d connotes an incorporated entity. (People v. Voleta (1965), 57 Ill. App. 2d 279, 206 N.E.2d 737.) \u201cA trier of fact may use common sense and general knowledge in considering evidence and drawing the proper inference from it.\u201d (People v. Toliver (1978), 60 Ill. App. 3d 650, 652, 377 N.E.2d 207, 209.) This rule and the testimony referred to above support the conclusion that there was sufficient proof that CNA Insurance was a corporation as the indictment alleged.\nDefendant further argues that in spite of the proof discussed above, the identity of the actual victim of the theft referred to was not sufficiently proven. He argues that although the victim was generally referred to throughout the trial as \u201cCNA Insurance\u201d or \u201cCNA Insurance Company,\u201d the real victim may well have been an entity entitled \u201cContinental Casualty Company.\u201d In supporting this argument, defendant cites the following exchange totally outside the presence of the jury, between the trial court and the Assistant State\u2019s Attorney:\n\u201cTHE COURT: What you are saying is that there is no such thing as CNA Insurance, a corporation.\nASSISTANT STATE\u2019S ATTORNEY: This is correct. I have to say that that is what I was informed of last night. We clearly have a victim here, and the victim has been identified in the State\u2019s proof.\nTHE COURT: You say the victim is what, Continental Casualty?\nASSISTANT STATE\u2019S ATTORNEY: Right, your Honor.\u201d\n\u201cContinental Casualty\u201d was referred to as the \u201cvictim\u201d in the above exchange based on the Assistant State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s statement that said entity was the actual holder of the funds drawn under the CNA Insurance drafts referred to in this case. In the entire discussion excerpted above, the Assistant State\u2019s Attorney further indicated that CNA Insurance and Continental Casualty Company are not independent corporations, but are interrelated corporate subdivisions of a parent corporation referred to as CNA Finance Association. We note that none of these statements was ever established at trial, and that the jury only heard the owner of the stolen funds referred to by the State and defense witnesses, as \u201cCNA Insurance\u201d or \u201cCNA Insurance Company.\u201d Defendant nevertheless argues that accepting the remarks of the Assistant State\u2019s Attorney as established facts, he is not protected from the problem of double jeopardy. Under his argument, that problem would arise when a suit for the same theft is brought naming \u201cContinental Casualty\u201d or some other entity as the real victim of the same theft that was here at issue.\nWe reject this argument. In People v. Kaprelian (1972), 6 Ill. App. 3d 1066, 286 N.E.2d 613, cert, denied (1973), 412 U.S. 918, 37 L. Ed. 2d 144, 93 S. Ct. 2730, we rejected a similar argument concerning double jeopardy. We noted that defendants had recourse to the record and the testimony contained therein to establish a defense of prior jeopardy in any subsequent prosecution for the same offense. (6 Ill. App. 3d 1066, 1071, 286 N.E.2d 613, 617.) Similarly in People v. Sims (1975), 29 Ill. App. 3d 815, 331 N.E.2d 178, we stated that defendant:\n\u201c[H]as the complaint, the transcript of the trial and the opinion of this court to shield him from a second prosecution for the same offense \u201d # # 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.\u201d (29 Ill. App. 3d 815,818,331 N.E.2d 178,180; see also People v. McAllister (1975), 31 Ill. App. 3d 825, 334 N.E.2d 885.)\nDefendant does not and cannot contest the established fact that the stolen and forged drafts which were referred to at trial and which formed the basis of the charges against him were the property of CNA Insurance Company. We cannot agree that a serious danger of double jeopardy is raised by defendant\u2019s emphasis on the unproven possibility that the funds drawn by those CNA drafts were actually owned or held by some other inter-related corporate entity. We conclude that the trial testimony and this opinion adequately protect defendant from any further attempted prosecution concerning the same insurance drafts and arising out of the same operative facts.\nRelated to the above argument is defendant\u2019s contention that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to vacate the jury verdict. Defendant points out that a co-defendant, Charles E. McDonald, was tried by bench trial simultaneous with his jury trial. McDonald was acquitted by the trial court because it found that CNA Insurance\u2019s corporate status was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant reasons that such a finding should have been made by the jury in his case, and that because they failed to make such a finding, their verdict should have been vacated. We disagree. The general rule in Illinois is that the failure to convict one co-defendant does not raise a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the other co-defendant. (See People v. Rogers (1959), 16 Ill. 2d 175, 157 N.E.2d 28.) \u201cFor a reasonable doubt to be raised in such cases, it must be shown that the evidence given against all of the defendants is identical in all respects.\u201d (People v. Stock (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 461,465, 309 N.E.2d 19, 21.) The record shows that the evidence heard in this case against defendant and co-defendant McDonald was not \u201cidentical in all respects.\u201d As we previously noted, defendant testified on his own behalf that he worked for \u201cCNA Insurance Company.\u201d Azelle Carter, Jr., one of the character witnesses called by defendant on his behalf, also referred to \u201cCNA Insurance Company.\u201d This testimony was heard only in connection with defendant\u2019s trial and, as we indicated above, was sufficient to support the jury\u2019s conclusion that CNA Insurance Company was a corporation. This conclusion was also supported by other evidence adduced at trial, including the drafts themselves which have the title \u201cCNA Insurance Company.\u201d The jury and the trial court operated as separate triers of fact and heard different evidence as to the two defendants. Different verdicts could properly be reached, and the jury\u2019s verdict should not have been and will not be disturbed.\nDefendant next contends that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He first points out that under section 16 \u2014 1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 16 \u2014 1), the gravaman of the offense of theft is the obtaining or exerting of unauthorized control over the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive him of the benefit thereof. (People v. Shoemaker (1975), 31 Ill. App. 3d 724, 334 N.E.2d 347.) Defendant argues that no evidence was presented at trial which proved that he controlled any of the funds which were paid under the stolen drafts and that his conviction for theft therefore cannot stand. We disagree. The testimony of Angelique Woods clearly established that defendant exerted unauthorized control over the stolen and forged CNA Insurance drafts. The State concedes that the funds drawn under those same drafts \u201cwere deposited in and credited to the bank accounts of other individuals.\u201d However, as the State correctly points out, a conviction may be sustained on circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and the inferences which it is the jury\u2019s province to draw from the evidence. (See People v. Toolate (1976), 45 Ill. App. 3d 567, 359 N.E.2d 1062; People v. Wilkins (1976), 36 Ill. App. 3d 761, 344 N.E.2d 724.) On this basis, in light of all the evidence, we conclude that the State sufficiently established the required element of defendant\u2019s control over the stolen property.\nDefendant further argues, however, that because the jury\u2019s verdict was based upon the testimony of Angelique Woods he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He points out that by her own admission, Woods was promised by the State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s Office that in return for her testimony, she would not be prosecuted. He argues that this fact and various inconsistencies which he alleges to exist in her testimony lead to the conclusion that it was not sufficientiy credible to support his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. We first note that, contrary to defendant\u2019s claim, our review reveals that any inconsistencies in Woods\u2019 testimony were minor. Further, our supreme court has \u201crepeatedly held that a conviction can be sustained by the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice if the trier of fact is convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d (People v. Palmer (1962), 26 Ill. 2d 464, 469, 187 N.E.2d 236, 239 cert. denied (1963), 373 U.S. 951, 10 L. Ed. 2d 706, 83 S. Ct. 1681.) Although such testimony is fraught with such weaknesses as the promise of immunity or the accomplice\u2019s malice toward the accused, the question of whether it is a satisfactory basis for conviction is nevertheless one which goes to the weight of the evidence and is therefore within the province of the jury to decide. (People v. Wilson (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 346,362 N.E.2d 291.) We will not reweigh or set aside the jury\u2019s determination of guilt unless it is palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence or so unsatisfactory as to cause a reasonable doubt as to guilt. (People v. Manion (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 564, 367 N.E.2d 1313, cert, denied (1978), 435 U.S. 937, 55 L. Ed. 2d 533, 98 S. Ct. 1513.) We conclude that the jury\u2019s determination of guilt was adequately supported in this case and should not now be set aside.\nBased on the foregoing, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSULLIVAN, P. J., and MEJDA, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE LORENZ" } ], "attorneys": [ "Julius Lucius Echeles and John Lanahan, both of Chicago, for appellant.", "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Lee T. Hettinger and Mary Ellen Dienes, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAN ANTHONY RANCE, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 78-212\nOpinion filed February 2, 1979.\nJulius Lucius Echeles and John Lanahan, both of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Lee T. Hettinger and Mary Ellen Dienes, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0639-01", "first_page_order": 661, "last_page_order": 671 }