{ "id": 3161302, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PATRICK HUNT, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Hunt", "decision_date": "1980-11-26", "docket_number": "No. 80-90", "first_page": "496", "last_page": "501", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "90 Ill. App. 3d 496" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "376 N.E.2d 283", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 Ill. App. 3d 7", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3353878 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/60/0007-01" ] }, { "cite": "401 N.E.2d 1263", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "81 Ill. App. 3d 422", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3228260 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/81/0422-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 N.E.2d 352", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 Ill. App. 3d 378", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2681782 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/14/0378-01" ] }, { "cite": "353 N.E.2d 441", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 Ill. App. 3d 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2486805 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/41/0588-01" ] }, { "cite": "399 N.E.2d 168", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 Ill. App. 3d 584", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5608819 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/79/0584-01" ] }, { "cite": "400 N.E.2d 65", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "80 Ill. App. 3d 701", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3231965 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/80/0701-01" ] }, { "cite": "190 N.E.2d 301", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 Ill. 2d 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5360677 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/27/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "288 N.E.2d 873", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "53 Ill. 2d 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2925636 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/53/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 N.E.2d 1242", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1243" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "77 Ill. App. 3d 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3289656 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "116" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/77/0115-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 659, "char_count": 13892, "ocr_confidence": 0.903, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.370766702081117e-08, "percentile": 0.33684821006939014 }, "sha256": "375abb3fb43a87cf79f197aa115bc731f26ef69a46728843452899ef142a6f65", "simhash": "1:6f72fec522781795", "word_count": 2376 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:48:32.356040+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. PATRICK HUNT, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE BARRY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Patrick Hunt, was charged by indictment with one count of burglary (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 19 \u2014 1(a)) and three counts of theft (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, pars. 16 \u2014 1(a)(1), (d)(1)) on July 19,1979. Following a bench trial, the defendant was found guilty on all counts. In an order dated February 14, 1980, the Circuit Court of Tazewell County entered judgment against the defendant on the burglary count only, and sentenced Hunt to the Department of Corrections for a term of 5 years. It is from this burglary conviction that the defendant appeals, raising as his only issue whether the inculpatory inference raised by the recent, exclusive and unexplained possession of stolen property was rebutted in this case by the uncontradicted testimony of four defense witnesses and one prosecution witness.\nFive witnesses testified for the State. The first to testify was Donald Norris, the burglary victim. At approximately 10 or 10:30 p.m. on June 27, 1979, Norris left his Pekin apartment for work. At about 5 a.m., a police officer came to his place of employment and informed him that his apartment had been entered. Upon returning home, Norris found his apartment had indeed been burglarized. A television set, camera, tool box and tools, lock box, and a souvenir dueling pistol had been taken. Fingerprints were found at the crime scene, but according to Robert Du Bois, a crime scene technician for the Illinois Department of Law Enforcement, they did not match the defendant\u2019s fingerprints. The only latent fingerprints identified were those of Norris.\nThe next State witness was Eddie Thomas, a Pekin police officer. Thomas and his partner were on duty conducting tavern checks the morning of June 28, 1979, when at 12:03 a.m. they were approached by two young boys and informed that a television set and some other merchandise was located in bushes behind Oltmar\u2019s tavern. Thomas and his partner then went to the place indicated by the boys, and they found a television set, tool box, cash box, and a pillow case full of other items. Norris\u2019 name and address was found on a name tag attached to the tool box. Thomas left his partner at the scene and went to Norris\u2019 residence where he discovered evidence of a burglary.\nAfter Thomas reported the burglary, he returned to the spot behind Oltmar\u2019s tavern where the items were found and met two plainclothes officers, one of whom was Jim Conover. Conover and his partner staked out the area while Thomas remained in the vicinity. Sometime between midnight and 1:30 a.m., Conover saw two individuals, neither of whom was the defendant, walk from the front of Oltmar\u2019s tavern to the location of the stolen items. The two then picked something up and walked to the north along some railroad tracks until they were out of sight. Conover and his partner followed on foot. At this time, the officers observed a white station wagon turn south into a nearby alley and proceed toward the bushes where the property had been found. There the car stopped with its headlights out. Conover and his partner then saw two persons loading something into the car. After they finished loading the car, they entered through the rear doors. The lights on the car were then turned on, and it proceeded in a southerly direction. Conover radioed Thomas and told him to stop the station wagon. Thomas did so and found four persons inside, one of whom was the defendant. The defendant was sitting in the right front seat. Wallace McCreary, the owner of the car, was driving. The defendant\u2019s brother, Kenneth Hunt, was sitting in the back seat with Rodney Giddens. The tool box and lock box stolen from Norris\u2019 apartment were in the back seat with Kenneth Hunt and Giddens. Norris\u2019 television set was in the rear luggage area. The souvenir dueling pistol was found on the front seat between the defendant and McCreary.\nPatricia Gale was the final prosecution witness. She testified that the evening of June 27,1979, six people were at her Pekin apartment. Among her guests were the defendant and Wallace McCreary. According to Gale, the defendant arrived at approximately 7 p.m. and stayed until 12. During this five-hour time span, the defendant never left her apartment. Although he left at 12, he returned a half hour later with another of his brothers, John Hunt. The defendant then again departed, apparently to go to his home three blocks away, and returned about 12:50 a.m. When he returned, he asked McCreary if he (Hunt) could borrow McCreary\u2019s car. McCreary refused Hunt\u2019s request, claiming that there was not enough gas in the car. At this time, the defendant left and returned home. Five minutes later McCreary left to pick up the defendant because he \u201cfelt bad\u201d about not giving him the car. Gale testified that the defendant wanted the car so he could go and pick up some money owed to him by someone for whom he was doing painting.\nGale further testified that Kenneth Hunt was also at her apartment the evening of June 27. Between 9 and 10:30 p.m., Kenneth Hunt left and did not return until 12:15 a.m. When he returned, he was accompanied by Rodney Giddens. Kenneth asked for Patrick Hunt upon his return, but finding he was not there, left with Giddens shortly after their arrival.\nFour witnesses testified on the defendant\u2019s behalf. The first was Nelson Boyer. Boyer testified that he and his wife were present at McCreary\u2019s apartment (which he apparently shared with Patricia Gale) the evening of June 27. John Hunt, Patrick Hunt, Gale and McCreary were also there. The defendant was present when Boyer and his wife arrived between 8:30 and 9 p.m. At approximately 9:30, Boyer left with John and Kenneth Hunt for some beer. However, Kenneth Hunt did not return to the apartment with Boyer and John Hunt. The defendant and his brother, John, left the apartment between 11:30 and 12 to get something to eat, and at the time Boyer and his wife departed (12:45), the defendant had not yet returned.\nJohn Hunt testified that except for the time he, his brother Kenneth, and Boyer left McCreary\u2019s apartment to get beer, he was always in the company of the defendant while at the apartment the night of June 27. At 11:45, John and the defendant left the apartment to get something to eat at the Red Wagon restaurant. They returned about 45 minutes later. After they returned to the apartment, they stayed for 10 to 15 minutes. Subsequently, John drove the defendant home, which was about three blocks \u00e1way, and drove home himself.\nWallace McCreary was the next defense witness. He testified that he arrived at his apartment at about 6 or 7 p.m. June 27 with the defendant and Kenneth Hunt. Gale was already there when the three arrived. Boyer and his wife arrived later.\nMcCreary testified that at about 9:30 or 10 John Hunt, Kenneth Hunt, and Boyer left to get beer. About a half hour later only John and Boyer returned. At 12 a.m., John Hunt and the defendant left for the Red Wagon restaurant. This was the first time the defendant left McCreary\u2019s apartment since his arrival. They returned about 12:30 or 12:45 and left together a short time later. John was going to drive the defendant home.\nAccording to McCreary, the defendant returned to the apartment shortly after being driven home, and asked him if he could borrow McCreary\u2019s car. McCreary initially refused because the car was low on gas, and the defendant left. However, McCreary reconsidered his refusal and left in his car (the white station wagon) to pick up the defendant.\nWhen McCreary arrived at the defendant\u2019s home, he testified he found Kenneth Hunt and Rodney Giddens there. Their motorcycle had run out of gas, and so they asked for a ride to the south side of Pekin where Giddens lived. McCreary agreed, and all four got in the car. McCreary took Giddens and Kenneth Hunt as far as the area near Oltmar\u2019s tavern, where he let Giddens and Kenneth Hunt off. Giddens told McCreary that he lived nearby and was going home.\nAfter McCreary left Giddens and Kenneth Hunt off, he and the defendant drove to several nearby places in an effort to obtain gasoline, but found no success. Eventually they returned to the vicinity of Oltmar\u2019s tavern. Driving down an alley toward a through street, McCreary was waved down by Giddens and Kenneth Hunt. McCreary stated that he did not expect to see either of them there. At this point, McCreary stopped his car. Giddens and Kenneth Hunt told McCreary that \u201cthey had found some stuff\u201d and wanted to load it in his car. McCreary agreed, and in order to save fuel, shut the engine off and turned off his headlights. Giddens and Kenneth Hunt then proceeded to load the goods into McCreary\u2019s car. Neither McCreary nor the defendant assisted in any way. Further, nothing was said by anyone at any time about a burglary or about the goods being stolen. After Kenneth Hunt and Giddens were finished, they got into the car. They were apparently headed for Hunt\u2019s father\u2019s house when the police stopped the car a short time later.\nThe final defense witness was Rodney Giddens. Giddens admitted that he previously pleaded guilty to the June 27 Norris burglary. He testified that he, Kenneth Hunt, and a third individual committed the burglary. When asked who this third person was, Giddens at first refused to answer, but then stated that he could not recall. He did state, however, that the defendant was not the third individual.\n\u201cEvidence of a knowing, recent, exclusive, and unexplained possession of stolen property by an accused, either singly or jointly with others, may raise an inference of the accused\u2019s guilt of burglary and is sufficient, by itself, to support a conviction.\u201d (People v. Sanders (1979), 77 Ill. App. 3d 115, 116, 395 N.E.2d 1242, 1243. Accord, People v. Harris (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 83, 288 N.E.2d 873; People v. Reynolds (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 523, 190 N.E.2d 301; People v. Heard (1980), 80 Ill. App. 3d 701, 400 N.E.2d 65; People v. Craig (1979), 79 Ill. App. 3d 584, 399 N.E.2d 168; People v. Klausing (1976), 41 Ill. App. 3d 588, 353 N.E.2d 441.) The only question presented in this case is whether that inference has been effectively rebutted by the uncontradicted testimony of four defense witnesses (John Hunt, Boyer, McCreary, and Giddens) and one State witness (Gale) so as to raise a reasonable doubt of defendant\u2019s guilt.\nAs a preliminary matter, it must be pointed out that we are concerned with the testimony given at defendant\u2019s trial only as it relates to his whereabouts at the time of the Nojris burglary. Even if the defendant had knowingly participated in the secreting of the burglary proceeds, he would be no more than an accessory after the fact with regard to the burglary itself. As such, he cannot be held legally accountable for the acts of the burglars (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 5 \u2014 2; People v. Malcom (1973), 14 Ill. App. 3d 378, 302 N.E.2d 352).\nBriefly reviewing the evidence, Gale, McCreary, John Hunt, and Boyer all provided alibis for the defendant. It is clear that the burglary could have been committed only beween 10 p.m. (when Norris left his apartment for work) and 12 (when the two boys discovered the stolen property and informed Officer Thomas of its location). Gale testified that at all times from 7 until 12, Patrick Hunt was at her (McCreary\u2019s) apartment. Her testimony was fully corroborated by McCreary, who testified that he arrived at the apartment with Kenneth Hunt and the defendant at about 6 or 7 the night of the 27th, and that the defendant did not leave until 12, when he left with his brother, John, to go to a restaurant. Boyer\u2019s testimony was similar, although he himself was absent from the apartment once during the evening. John Hunt testified that he was with the defendant virtually all night until 1 a.m., except for the time he went with Boyer and Kenneth Hunt to get beer. Finally, Giddens, who was one of the perpetrators of the crime, did not provide an alibi but stated that the defendant did not participate in the burglary.\nThe alibi evidence presented by three defense witnesses and one State\u2019s witness was unrefuted and uncontradicted. However, the trier of fact is not required to believe alibi evidence, even though it is unrefuted. (People v. Perry (1980), 81 Ill. App. 3d 422, 401 N.E.2d 1263; People v. Grice (1978), 60 Ill. App. 3d 7, 376 N.E.2d 283.) The value of alibi evidence necessarily hinges upon the credibility and believability of the witnesses providing the alibi, questions which are within the exclusive domain of the trier of fact. Here, it is evident that the trial court simply did not accept the testimony of the witnesses who provided the defendant with an alibi as true. That was its prerogative. (Grice; see Perry.) It heard all of the testimony and was given the opportunity that is not presented to this court to view the witnesses\u2019 demeanor. We cannot say as a matter of law that on the basis of the record before us, the trial court\u2019s rejection of the alibi testimony (and Gidden\u2019s testimony as well) was erroneous. Consequently, the inference of an accused\u2019s guilt of burglary that accompanies the recent, exclusive, and unexplained possession of stolen goods was unrebutted so as to raise a reasonable doubt of defendant\u2019s guilt.\nFor these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court of Tazewell County.\nJudgment affirmed.\nALLOY, P. J., and SCOTT, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE BARRY" } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert Agostinelli and Frank W. Ralph, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.", "Bruce W. Black, State\u2019s Attorney, of Pekin (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. PATRICK HUNT, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 80-90\nOpinion filed November 26, 1980.\nRehearing denied December 23, 1980.\nRobert Agostinelli and Frank W. Ralph, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nBruce W. Black, State\u2019s Attorney, of Pekin (John X. Breslin and Gerry R. Arnold, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0496-01", "first_page_order": 518, "last_page_order": 523 }