{
  "id": 3126695,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSEPH SANSONE, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Sansone",
  "decision_date": "1981-03-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 79-1398",
  "first_page": "271",
  "last_page": "274",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "94 Ill. App. 3d 271"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "357 N.E.2d 487",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 Ill. 2d 132",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5435255
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/65/0132-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "380 N.E.2d 1070",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 3d 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3329914
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/64/0200-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "370 N.E.2d 1230",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ill. App. 3d 237",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3406035
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/55/0237-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N.E.2d 14",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 Ill. 2d 525",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5361936
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "527"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/28/0525-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "399 N.E.2d 724",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 Ill. App. 3d 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3235290
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "244"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/80/0242-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N.E.2d 631",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill. 2d 216",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2829348
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "219"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/30/0216-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.E.2d 236",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ill. 2d 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5377200
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "561"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/36/0556-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.E.2d 316",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 Ill. App. 2d 481",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2544491
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "485"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/89/0481-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 N.E.2d 31",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 534",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5427013
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "543"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/63/0534-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 407,
    "char_count": 5654,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.896,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0652727636379647e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7570647941250629
    },
    "sha256": "a54138bf50e86c138b117f812602835f5bf2f216844f2d96909b4e7c0d09d6cd",
    "simhash": "1:f72f1a8ed0ffb9b8",
    "word_count": 924
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:56:05.907180+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. JOSEPH SANSONE, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE LINN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAfter a jury trial, defendant Joseph Sansone and co-defendant Bruce Youngbrandt were found guilty of burglary, attempt theft, and possession of burglary tools. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, pars. 19\u20141, 8\u20144 and 19\u20142.) Defendant was thereafter sentenced to 3 years incarceration only on the burglary conviction. On appeal defendant contends that he was not properly found guilty of burglary as defined by statute. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 19\u20141(a).) Defendant also assigns as error the trial court\u2019s failure to read the indictment to the jury.\nSince no issue is raised concerning defendant\u2019s culpability, we need not fully recite the facts establishing his guilt. The evidence adduced at trial, however, shows that on February 2,1978, at approximately 10 p.m., defendant and co-defendant Youngbrandt were observed sitting in the front seat of a late model Buick when the police arrived at the scene. Both men immediately exited the car and began to run. Defendant and his accomplice were subsequently apprehended and placed under arrest. Several tools including a drill, socket wrench, lock puller, wire cutters, and three flashlights were found by police lying on the floor of the car. The vehicle\u2019s ignition cap was broken off and metal shavings were discovered on the floor.\nAfter closing arguments, the trial court instructed the jury of the elements for the crimes of burglary, attempt theft and possession of burglary tools. The court also instructed the jury that the indictment was the formal method of accusing the defendant of a crime and was not to be considered as evidence of his guilt.\nDefendant contends that his conduct of entering an automobile with the intent to steal the vehicle itself did not constitute the offense of burglary as set forth in the statute. The statutory definition of burglary provides in part as follows:\n\u201cA person commits burglary when without authority he knowingly enters * * * a * * * motor vehicle as defined in The Illinois Vehicle Code * * * or any part thereof, with intent to commit therein a felony or theft.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 19 \u2014 1(a).\nThe prime consideration in construing a statutory enactment is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. In ascertaining the legislature\u2019s intention, the entire statute must be considered, as well as the evil to be remedied and the object to be attained. (People v. Bratcher (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 534, 543, 349 N.E.2d 31.) Where several constructions may be placed upon a statute, the court should select that which leads to a logical result and avoid those which would be absurd. (Board of Education v. Community High School District No. 211 (1967), 89 Ill. App. 2d 481, 485, 232 N.E.2d 316.) It is presumed that the legislature in passing legislation did not intend absurdity, inconvenience or injustice. Illinois Crime Investigating Com. v. Buccieri (1967), 36 Ill. 2d 556, 561, 224 N.E.2d 236.\nDefendant, in construing the aforementioned statutory provision, maintains that the word \u201ctherein\u201d refers only to property taken from within the vehicle. Defendant claims that because he entered the automobile with the intent to steal the entire vehicle and not just a component part therefrom, his conviction for burglary cannot stand. We disagree.\nThe material elements of burglary are entry without authority with the intent to commit a felony or theft. (People v. Clark (1964), 30 Ill. 2d 216, 219,195 N.E.2d 631; People v. Bailey (1980), 80 Ill. App. 3d 242, 244, 399 N.E.2d 724.) And it need not be proved that the defendant actually took anything to sustain the conviction. (People v. Dennis (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 525, 527, 193 N.E.2d 14.) In the present case we believe the material elements of burglary were satisfied in that defendant entered the automobile without authority with the requisite criminal intent. (Compare People v. Bournes (1977), 55 Ill. App. 3d 237, 370 N.E.2d 1230.) Defendant committed a felony in the automobile in that he intended to steal the car itself, and the sufficiency of evidence establishing defendant\u2019s unlawful entry and his intent to steal the entire vehicle is not disputed by him on appeal. We additionally note that the crime of burglary was complete upon showing defendant\u2019s entry without authority with the intent to steal, and it was not essential to prove that anything was actually taken. (People v. Jefferson (1978), 64 Ill. App. 3d 200, 380 N.E.2d 1070.) Therefore, we reject defendant\u2019s statutory interpretation of section 19 \u2014 1(a) and conclude that he was properly convicted for the offense of burglary.\nDefendant also contends that the jury was left without any guidance as to what offense he was charged with since the indictment was not read to the jury. We find this argument unpersuasive since the record clearly shows that the jury was fully instructed by the trial court as to the elements of the offenses for which defendant was convicted. People v. Parks (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 132, 357 N.E.2d 487.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nROMITI, P. J\u201e and JOHNSON, J., concur.\nCo-defendant Bruce Youngbrandt is not a party within the present appeal.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE LINN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Julius Lucius Echeles, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr, Mary Ellen Dienes, and Susan Ruscitti Grussel, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSEPH SANSONE, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 79-1398\nOpinion filed March 12, 1981.\nRehearing denied April 9, 1981.\nJulius Lucius Echeles, of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr, Mary Ellen Dienes, and Susan Ruscitti Grussel, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0271-01",
  "first_page_order": 293,
  "last_page_order": 296
}