{
  "id": 3206052,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONALD MOSLEY, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Mosley",
  "decision_date": "1980-05-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 79-198",
  "first_page": "62",
  "last_page": "63",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 62"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "368 N.E.2d 608",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Ill. App. 3d 312",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3395913
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/53/0312-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "387 N.E.2d 1230",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 3d 906",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3238532
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/69/0906-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 N.E.2d 395",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill. App. 3d 280",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2857444,
        2852567
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/12/0280-01",
        "/ill-app-3d/12/0280-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 N.E.2d 579",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 Ill. App. 2d 473",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2821666
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/100/0473-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "338 N.E.2d 239",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill. App. 3d 736",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2871194
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/33/0736-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 293,
    "char_count": 3879,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.878,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4713313401669364
    },
    "sha256": "c764c37af09b9e03a72d025b9d3b4c4b95f335785289a392fdc89cecf1af801f",
    "simhash": "1:9fc276471b6e6ee4",
    "word_count": 651
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:36:38.181565+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. RONALD MOSLEY, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal by the defendant, Ronald Mosley, from his conviction for theft of property having a value of more than $150 following a jury trial. The only issue presented in this appeal is whether the defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial by the testimony of an accomplice concerning the defendant\u2019s normal routine for \u201cripping off\u201d gas stations and reference to this \u201croutine\u201d by the prosecutor during opening and closing arguments.\nJeane Putnam, the defendant\u2019s accomplice, testified that the theft in this case was carried out along the lines of a plan or design which had been employed by the two previously in other gas stations. That plan was that the defendant would get and keep the attendant\u2019s attention at the gas pumps while Putnam would enter the station and take the money.\nBecause the defendant did not preserve this issue in his post-trial motion, the State argues that it has been waived for purposes of review. Underlying the principle of waiver is the rationale that the trial court must be given an opportunity to correct an alleged error', and therefore, the failure to include the issue in the post-trial motion is generally considered a waiver of such issue for purposes of review. (People v. Guynn (1975), 33 Ill. App. 3d 736, 338 N.E.2d 239.) However, an error concerning the admission of evidence and argument of other crimes can be so grave as to be plain error. (People v. Scott (1968), 100 Ill. App. 2d 473, 241 N.E.2d 579; People v. Clark (1973), 12 Ill. App. 3d 280, 297 N.E.2d 395.) Therefore, we shall consider the issue here in order to determine whether an error actually occurred.\nAs a general rule, evidence of other crimes should not be admitted unless it tends to establish a fact in issue such as motive, intent, identity or absence of mistake, or demonstrates a modus operandi for the defendant or shows a common scheme or design. (People v. Walters (1979), 69 Ill. App. 3d 906, 387 N.E.2d 1230.) It is the State\u2019s contention that the evidence in the case at bar fits into the modus operandi exception. We disagree.\nThe establishing of a defendant\u2019s modus operandi is merely a technique employed to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the charged offense by demonstrating that another crime or other crimes committed by the defendant were so nearly identical in method to the offense charged that the offense charged is earmarked as the handiwork of the accused. (People v. Osborn (1977), 53 Ill. App. 3d 312, 368 N.E.2d 608.) Here, the defendant was otherwise identified as the perpetrator, and it does not appear that the evidence complained of was utilized to establish modus operandi.\nInstead, the evidence was used to show a common design or scheme. This is certainly an appropriate use of the evidence. In People v. Walters (1979), 69 Ill. App. 3d 906, 387 N.E.2d 1230, evidence that the defendant had been a \u201clookout\u201d while a companion robbed a victim on each of three occasions, including the incident for which he was then standing trial, was admissible to show a common design or scheme.\nBecause the testimony and argument complained of in the case at bar pertain to a common scheme or design that is common both to the defendant and the accomplice who admitted actually taking the money, we find no error requiring reversal. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Knox County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nALLOY, P. J., and BARRY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Agostinelli, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "Carl Hawkinson, State\u2019s Attorney, of Galesburg (John X. Breslin and Gerry R. Arnold, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONALD MOSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 79-198\nOpinion filed May 16, 1980.\nRobert Agostinelli, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nCarl Hawkinson, State\u2019s Attorney, of Galesburg (John X. Breslin and Gerry R. Arnold, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0062-01",
  "first_page_order": 84,
  "last_page_order": 85
}