People v. Chambers

2024 IL App (1st) 230229-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: February 1, 2024
• Docket: 1-23-0229
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2024 IL App (1st) 230229-U No. 1-23-0229 Order filed February 1, 2024 Fourth Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Stephenson County. ) v. ) No. 06 CF 329 ) PHILLIP E. CHAMBERS, ) Honorable ) Michael P. Bald, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE MARTIN delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Rochford and Justice Ocasio concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: We affirm defendant’s conviction for residential burglary over his contention that the State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶2 Following a bench trial, defendant Phillip E. Chambers was found guilty of residential

burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-3(a) (West 2006)) and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. On appeal,

Chambers contends that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when it

failed to establish that he intended to commit a crime. We affirm.1

1 In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), this appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon the entry of a separate written order. No. 1-23-0229

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 Chambers was charged by complaint with one count of residential burglary and one count

of theft of property exceeding $300, arising from an April 29, 2006 incident where he allegedly

entered Gerald Siedenburg’s house without authority and stole coins worth more than $300. 2

¶5 A. State’s Case

¶6 1. Sydney Aspinwall

¶7 Sydney Aspinwall (née Peters) and her family, the Peters, lived with Siedenburg at his

residence located at 1700 Gladewood Drive in Freeport, Illinois for “[m]aybe a week” in 2006.

Chambers was friends with Aspinwall’s brother-in-law, Harley Reeder. Prior to their brief stay

with Siedenburg, the Peters lived at Allen Kraus’s residence. 3 While living with Kraus, Chambers

visited “at least once or twice” with Reeder. Aspinwall remembered his visits because she “had a

crush” on Chambers. At the Kraus residence, guests removed their shoes and left them on the

landing. Aspinwall regularly rearranged said shoes because “her mom was a stickler” and would

yell at her if there were too many shoes. Accordingly, Aspinwall “knew everybody’s shoes at that

house,” and remembered that Chambers wore white K-Swiss shoes. After living with Siedenburg,

the family moved temporarily to a house on Cleveland Street.

2 The victim’s first name is interchangeably referred to as Jerry and Gerry throughout the record on appeal, and his last name is also spelled Siedenberg. We adopt the spelling, Gerald Siedenburg, from the complaint. The complaint was superseded by an indictment filed on January 15, 2013, which additionally alleged that Chambers “was not usually and publically [sic] a resident of the State of Illinois for in excess of 4 years since the date of the offense.” During pretrial proceedings on March 29, 2022, a stipulation was filed asserting that after Chambers’s arrest on September 28, 2006, he escaped the police department during booking procedures and fled the state. The parties also stipulated that Chambers’s absence from Illinois tolled the statute of limitations. The record establishes that Chambers entered a non-negotiated guilty plea to the escape charge in 2021 and, following a sentencing hearing, was sentenced to 30 months’ probation and 120 days’ periodic imprisonment. 3 Aspinwall called Kraus her stepfather but clarified that he had dated her mother for 20 years. -2- No. 1-23-0229

¶8 On cross-examination, Aspinwall stated that after the Siedenburg burglary, she told a

police officer that Chambers’s only pair of shoes was a pair of K-Swiss shoes, size 11 to 13.

Aspinwall recalled that Chambers wore K-Swiss branded shoes because “those were the only

K-Swiss shoes in [Kraus’s] home.” On April 29, 2006, Reeder and Daniel Kaiser visited the house

on Cleveland Street looking for Aspinwall’s sister, Elizabeth Reeder (née Peters). 4 As Elizabeth

was not there, they did not enter the house. She did not see Chambers with Kaiser and Reeder that

evening. Reeder is married to Elizabeth, but Aspinwall does not “talk to” Elizabeth and was not

trying to “stick this to Phillip to help Harley.”

¶9 2. Daniel Kaiser

¶ 10 Daniel Kaiser, who was present during the April 2006 incident, testified at Chambers’s

trial. Kaiser was separately convicted of residential burglary “[o]n the grounds of accountability”

for his role in the incident. He was ordered to pay restitution, which his parents paid for him. Kaiser

agreed that, if Chambers were found guilty, his parents would like at least partial reimbursement

for the restitution. At the time of Chambers’s trial, Kaiser had pending charges in Wisconsin for

possession and possession with intent to deliver. Kaiser agreed to testify “[t]o make sure justice

was served the way that it was meant to be and should have been.”

¶ 11 On April 29, 2006, Kaiser traveled to Siedenburg’s residence twice. The first time, Kaiser

picked up Chambers and his friend Harley Reeder, and visited Siedenburg’s house to see if

4 At the time, Elizabeth Reeder was Harley’s girlfriend. At the time of Chambers’s trial, they were married. -3- No. 1-23-0229

Elizabeth was present. Chambers and Reeder went up to the residence, Siedenburg answered the

door, and the two men returned to the car. Nothing memorable happened during this first trip. 5

¶ 12 Later that day, Kaiser was with his girlfriend, Kayla 6, when Chambers called Kayla and

asked Kaiser and Kayla to drive Chambers and Reeder to “the Dells area” to search for work. After

Kaiser picked up Chambers and Reeder, Chambers said that he needed to retrieve “clothes and

some stuff” that he had left at Siedenburg’s residence. Kaiser drove to the residence and parked in

Siedenburg’s driveway. Chambers approached the house and rang the doorbell, but there was no

response. Chambers then walked to the back of the house. Five to ten minutes later, he returned to

the vehicle and asked Kaiser to open the trunk so he could put a bag inside. After Chambers

returned to the car, Chambers and Reeder asked Kaiser to stop at Cubs Foods, a grocery store.

They explained they had collected coins that they wanted to exchange at a Coinstar machine.

¶ 13 After Chambers and Reeder were unable to exchange the coins at Cubs Foods, Kaiser drove

to another grocery store, Logli Supermarket. Chambers brought his backpack into Logli and Kaiser

observed that it was “a third to a quarter” full of coins. At Chambers’s request, Kaiser assisted

with the Coinstar machine, but they were unable to exchange the coins and had to ask a manager

for help. Kaiser last saw Chambers that night when Kaiser dropped off Chambers and Reeder at a

hotel in Wisconsin.

¶ 14 Kaiser spoke with Detective Matt Summers in 2006 but did not tell Summers about the

second trip to Siedenburg’s residence because Kaiser had heard rumors that “a burglary” had

occurred and he did not want to “involve” himself in the crime. Kaiser had been “in trouble” with

5 When Kaiser first spoke with a detective in 2020 regarding the events of April 29, 2006, he did not mention the first trip to Siedenburg’s house. He stated it was 15 years prior and, as nothing had happened, he did not think to mention it initially. 6 Kayla’s last name is not in the record. She was his ex-girlfriend at the time of Chambers’s trial. -4- No. 1-23-0229

Chambers before and was apprehensive about spending time with him. Kaiser denied receiving

any “proceeds” from the burglary.

¶ 15 Kaiser identified photographs depicting the driveway and exterior of the Siedenburg

residence. 7 Kaiser also identified surveillance footage from Logli and a photograph taken from the

footage depicting him exiting the store with a soda. 8 The video, which Kaiser narrated, depicts

Chambers and Kaiser enter the store and approach a Coinstar machine. Chambers carries a black

backpack. They spend a few minutes operating the machine, periodically adding coins from the

backpack. At one point, Chambers leaves to find a store employee who assists them with the

machine. Eventually Kaiser walks further into the store, while Chambers stays with the machine.

After a few more minutes, Chambers retrieves the bag and leaves the store.

¶ 16 On cross-examination, Kaiser stated that he had discussed reimbursement with the State

and had been informed that, if Chambers were found guilty, the court would address whether his

parents were to receive reimbursement. After the second trip to the Siedenburg residence, when

Chambers returned to the vehicle with a bag, Kaiser had no reason to believe a crime had been

committed. After Kaiser stated he wears a size 11 shoe, defense counsel asked Kaiser to place his

foot next to Chambers’s so the court could observe the difference in shoe size. The court noted

that Kaiser’s shoe “appears larger” than that of Chambers.

¶ 17 Kaiser had not spoken to Chambers for 2½ years before Chambers called Kayla to ask for

a ride to the Dells on April 29, 2006. Kaiser could not recall if he told detectives in May 2006 that

Reeder and Chambers had stayed at the Siedenburg house. Neither could he recall whether he told

detectives that he, Chambers, and Reeder stopped at two grocery stores to use the restroom or if

7 These photographs are included in the record on appeal and have been viewed by this court. 8 The video is in the record on appeal and has also been viewed by this court. -5- No. 1-23-0229

he omitted that the group went to the stores with a backpack full of change to exchange. He did

not mention Reeder to the detectives in May 2006 because they only asked him about Chambers.

In 2020, Kaiser informed detectives that he was speaking with Reeder in the vehicle and did not

hear sounds “of breaking or *** pounding” when Chambers went to the back of the house. On

redirect examination, Kaiser testified that he never owned a pair of K-Swiss shoes.

¶ 18 3. Stipulations

¶ 19 The State entered a stipulation that Siedenburg did not authorize Chambers to enter his

residence, and that Chambers did not admit to being inside the residence on the date in question.

¶ 20 The State also entered stipulated trial transcripts of witness testimonies from Kaiser’s trial

in Stephenson County case 06 CF 328. The transcripts were introduced at Chambers’s trial and are

included in their entirety in the record on appeal. The trial court read the witnesses’ transcripts and

then permitted defense counsel to state what questions he would have asked each witness on

cross-examination, if they were present. Defense counsel then directed the court to parts of the

transcripts that, according to counsel, contained the relevant answers. We summarize the stipulated

testimonies of the witnesses, along with defense counsel’s proposed cross-examination questions.

These witnesses are Freeport police officer Kurtis Schnoor, Illinois State police sergeant Anthony

Heindl, Gerald Siedenburg, Robert Brown, Richard Naze, and Freeport police officer Matthew

Summers.

¶ 21 a. Officer Kurtis Schnoor

¶ 22 At almost 10 p.m. on April 29, 2006, Schnoor responded to a call of a burglary at the

Siedenburg residence. Siedenburg stated that his home had been broken into and a “jar” of coins

and a duffle bag in his bedroom closet had been stolen. Schnoor observed damage to the door at

the north end of the house, and “footwear impression[s]” in the hallway between the door and the

-6- No. 1-23-0229

bedroom. The next day, Siedenburg called Schnoor to inform him that three cans of quarters were

also missing, but Schnoor did not know if they were taken with the other coins. During his

investigation, Schnoor discovered that attempts to exchange the coins had occurred at Logli and

Cub Foods, and he contacted both establishments.

¶ 23 Schnoor identified photographs of the interior and exterior of the Siedenburg residence,

which are included in the record on appeal. The photographs depict a damaged door and a shoe

print on the floor.

¶ 24 On cross-examination, defense counsel would have asked Schnoor if Siedenburg later

informed him that the duffle bag filled with silver coins was not missing, but rather, that

Siedenburg had hidden it elsewhere. Defense counsel noted that Siedenburg testified that he

remembered he had hidden the coins in another location. Defense counsel would also inquire if

Siedenburg had informed Schnoor that he had allowed the Peters family to stay in his residence

when he was on vacation; Schnoor would answer yes. Further, defense counsel would ask Schnoor

if Siedenburg informed him that Sydney and Elizabeth Peters both had boyfriends who stayed at

the residence with them, and that Sydney stayed in Siedenburg’s bedroom when he was on

vacation. Schnoor would answer yes. Lastly, defense counsel would ask Schnoor if Chambers was

listed as a suspect; Schnoor would testify no.

¶ 25 In response to defense counsel’s proposed questioning, the State would elicit testimony on

re-direct that, according to Schnoor’s police report, the shoe impression recovered at the scene was

a larger size with an emblem in the middle of the tread consistent with a K-Swiss logo.

¶ 26 b. Illinois Police Sergeant Anthony Heindl

¶ 27 Heindl photographed and processed the scene at Siedenburg’s residence. He collected four

latent lifts of footwear imprints inside the house and one outside near the “point of entry.” Each -7- No. 1-23-0229

shoe print appeared to be from a K-Swiss shoe, and the trail led directly from the entry point to the

foyer to the bedroom.

¶ 28 c. Gerald Siedenburg

¶ 29 In April 2006, Siedenburg allowed the Peters family to stay at his home while he and his

wife were on vacation. By the time Siedenburg returned from vacation on April 18 or 19, the Peters

family had moved to a rental house that Siedenburg owned. Siedenburg kept spare change in a

five-gallon glass jar in the master bedroom closet; he also kept additional coins in empty coffee

cans. On April 29, 2006, the jar was two-thirds full of change, worth over $300. At previous times,

when the jar was half full of change, there was approximately $1200 in the jar.

¶ 30 On that day, Siedenburg returned from work and observed a vehicle in the driveway that

he did not recognize. A person standing at the front door of the house approached Siedenburg and

identified himself as Reeder. Siedenburg recognized him as the boyfriend of “one of the Peters

girls.” Reeder said he was looking for the girls, and Siedenburg informed him that they did not

live there anymore. Siedenburg thought that the situation was strange, because the man had been

living with the Peters family during that time and knew they had moved. Reeder returned to the

vehicle, which had several other people inside, and left.

¶ 31 Later, Siedenburg went out to dinner, after locking the doors to his house. When

Siedenburg returned at approximately 9:15 p.m., he observed a piece of trim hanging from his

back door, which was not broken before he left. The glass jar of coins was missing from his closet.

Siedenburg subsequently discovered that the coffee cans containing other coins were also missing,

but that his silver coins hidden elsewhere had not been taken.

¶ 32 On cross-examination, defense counsel would have asked whether Reeder spent the night

at Siedenburg’s house; Siedenburg would answer affirmatively. -8- No. 1-23-0229

¶ 33 d. Logli Manager Robert Brown

¶ 34 Brown was familiar with the store’s surveillance system and identified a CD containing

surveillance footage from the store depicting two men using the Coinstar machine on April 29,

2006, at 11:15 p.m.

¶ 35 e. Logli Assistant Manager Richard Naze

¶ 36 Naze likewise identified the CD containing the video of the Coinstar machine on April 29,

2006. Naze identified himself in the video and testified that the video accurately depicted the

events of the evening. Naze recalled that two men asked for his assistance in operating the machine,

because they were exchanging an “exceptional amount of coins” and were unable to redeem the

voucher until the next day. Naze identified still photographs from the video, which are included in

the record on appeal and have been viewed by this court.

¶ 37 f. Freeport Police Officer Matthew Summers

¶ 38 Summers viewed the Logli surveillance video and identified Kaiser and Chambers

operating the Coinstar machine. Excerpts from redacted police reports state that on May 2, 2006,

Reeder spoke with Summers about the burglary, and Summers “looked at the bottom of ***

Reeder’s shoes and they were not the same tread design as the footwear that was obtained at the

scene.”

¶ 39 On cross-examination, defense counsel would have asked Summers if, pursuant to his

investigation, he had spoken with Tom Rogozinski and Paul Martin, employees of Cub Foods,

who told Summers that two men came to the store on April 29 at around 11:52 p.m.9 Rogozinski

9 Because defense counsel would question Summers on matters outside of the scope of the direct examination, the State stipulated that Summers would be called as a new witness with the cross-examination being presented as if the State had rested its case-in-chief. -9- No. 1-23-0229

and Martin told Summers that the men were able to “cash out,” and Martin provided Summers

with a receipt that was signed during the transaction, which is included in the record on appeal.

The Coinstar receipt displays the total value of the coins processed as $334.28 with a processing

fee of $29.75, showing that the value received was $304.53. The signature on the back of the

receipt is Reeder’s.

¶ 40 4. Other Evidence

¶ 41 The State introduced certified copies of Reeder’s charging document, sentencing order,

and release from probation related to the incident. The documents indicate that Reeder was charged

with theft on September 21, 2006. He pleaded guilty on December 15, 2006, and was sentenced to

178 days’ imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution. The restitution ordered was joint and

several with Kaiser’s and Chambers’s cases, totaling $3515.

¶ 42 The State also asked the court to take judicial notice of Chambers’s escape conviction in

case 06 CF 341. Lastly, the State offered the stipulated testimony of Schnoor, who would testify

that he was familiar with Reeder in 2006, and described him as white, non-Hispanic, 5’9”, and 160

pounds.

¶ 43 B. Defense Case

¶ 44 1. Stipulation

¶ 45 Defense counsel introduced a stipulation that forensic scientist Stephanie Bodine would

testify that she compared fingerprint samples from Reeder, Chambers, and Kaiser to latent

fingerprint lifts recovered by Heindl, and found no match.

¶ 46 2. Phillip Chambers

- 10 - No. 1-23-0229

¶ 47 Chambers was 5’5” in 2006, weighed 140 pounds “at most,” and wore a size 8 shoe, but

he did not recall the brand. Chambers wore a smaller shoe size than Kaiser, who was size 11, and

was shorter and weighed less than Reeder.

¶ 48 Chambers had never been inside Siedenburg’s home and did not enter it on April 29, 2006.

That day, Reeder called Chambers at “midday.” Chambers told Reeder he would “come smoke

weed” with him if he could get a ride to go see Reeder. Later that day, Kaiser and Kayla arrived

unannounced at Chambers’s house. Chambers informed Kaiser that he was seeking employment

in Wisconsin Dells and asked Kaiser for a ride to Wisconsin. Kaiser agreed. Chambers brought a

bag filled with his belongings, and Kaiser drove to Reeder’s house.

¶ 49 Reeder asked Kaiser if he could come as well, and Kaiser drove to Reeder’s girlfriend’s

house, where Reeder had been staying. Reeder gave Kaiser directions, and Kaiser drove to a house

Chambers was unfamiliar with. They arrived at 4:30 to 5 p.m. and parked in the driveway. Reeder

exited the vehicle and approached the front door, at which point another vehicle arrived; Reeder

spoke with the driver for a few seconds. Both Reeder and the driver returned to their vehicles, and

Kaiser drove to Reeder’s house.

¶ 50 Approximately an hour later, Chambers, Kaiser, and Reeder returned to Reeder’s

girlfriend’s house to get Reeder’s clothes. When they arrived, Reeder asked for Chambers’s

assistance to carry some of his belongings and asked Chambers to wait near the front door. Reeder

then walked to the rear of the house, and informed Chamber s that his key was “for the back door.”

¶ 51 Chambers waited for approximately five minutes, and Reeder returned through the front

door with an armful of clothes and a black bag, the latter of which he handed to Chambers. Reeder

signaled to Kaiser to open the trunk, and they walked toward the open trunk. Chambers returned

- 11 - No. 1-23-0229

the bag to Reeder, turned around, and reentered the vehicle. Reeder returned to the vehicle as well

and stated that he “needed to stop for cash for his travels.”

¶ 52 They first stopped in a store in Freeport. Reeder exited the vehicle and removed his

backpack from the trunk. Reeder returned without money, and they left. Next, the vehicle traveled

through Rockford, and they stopped at Logli, upon Reeder’s request. Chambers and Kaiser exited

the vehicle to exchange the coins for cash, on behalf of Reeder, and Reeder stayed in the vehicle.

While in Logli, Chambers attempted to load change into the Coinstar machine with the assistance

of an employee but was unsuccessful. Chambers exited the store 10 to 15 minutes later with the

bag, returned to the vehicle, and told Reeder that the machine did not “work.”

¶ 53 They continued driving toward Wisconsin Dells and stopped at Cub Foods. Reeder entered

the store with the bag alone because Chambers refused to continue to help Reeder attempt to

exchange his money. After leaving the store, they continued to drive to Wisconsin Dells. Chambers

testified that the coins which were exchanged were Reeder’s. Chambers believed the purpose of

going to Siedenburg’s house was for Reeder to retrieve clothes and belongings, and Chambers

believed Reeder when he said his key was for the back door.

¶ 54 Chambers was subsequently arrested but walked out of the police station and “left the

state.” Chambers explained that he was “young and dumb” and was afraid to get into trouble and

go to jail for something he did not do. Chambers returned after 14 years to “clear” his name and

see his family.

¶ 55 On cross-examination, Chambers stated that he never entered Siedenburg’s residence, and

never had authority to do so. When Chambers went with Reeder to retrieve Reeder’s clothes from

the residence, Chambers believed Reeder had stayed at the residence “for a few days” with his

girlfriend. Chambers did not know why Reeder left without his clothing the first time they went to - 12 - No. 1-23-0229

the house. When they returned to Siedenburg’s residence, Reeder did not inform Chambers that

he intended to break into the residence to steal change nor did he give any “indication” that he was

“up to no good.” Later, when Chambers carried the black bag that Reeder brought from

Siedenburg’s house, Chambers recalled the bag weighed “less than a circular saw” and was filled

with two to three inches of change.

¶ 56 There was nothing to lead Chambers to believe that Kaiser would have formed a different

opinion about Reeder’s purpose for entering Siedenburg’s residence. On April 29, 2006, Chambers

and Kaiser were friends. The State asked Chambers if he recalled a fight with Kaiser or knew of

any reason Kaiser would be angry with him. Chambers responded that he was “pretty sure” that

Kaiser discovered that Chambers and Kaiser’s girlfriend, Kayla, had “sexual relations” after

Chambers was in Wisconsin Dells.

¶ 57 Chambers did not recall telling detectives, including Summers, on September 11, 2006,

that he did not exchange coins for cash in Rockford. Chambers viewed the surveillance footage

from Logli with the detectives and stated that he and Kaiser went to a Coinstar machine in a grocery

store. Chambers did not recall if he told Summers where he had gotten the change. Chambers also

did not recall telling Summers that although Chambers did not know about a residential burglary,

Reeder informed him that he “knew where to get some money,” so that Chambers could see his

sister. Reeder did not want to leave the area because his girlfriend was pregnant. The backpack

that Chambers took from the threshold of the Siedenburg residence was black and weighed about

two to three pounds. The black backpack retrieved from the trunk had coins inside and looked

“[s]imilar or the same” to the bag retrieved from the threshold. At the time Chambers attempted to

exchange the coins, he believed that they belonged to Reeder. When they arrived at Wisconsin

- 13 - No. 1-23-0229

Dells, Reeder and Chambers paid for a hotel room for the four of them; Reeder paid his share with

cash.

¶ 58 Regarding his escape conviction, Chambers left the police station because he knew he was

under arrest for a residential burglary, and fled because he did not “want to be in jail.” Chambers

did not think ahead and agreed that he was “on the run” for 14 years with no contact with his

family and used an alias during that time.

¶ 59 On redirect examination, Chambers testified that in 2006, his sisters lived in Chicago and

Freeport, but he did not have a close relationship with them and did not need money to visit them.

¶ 60 In rebuttal, the State presented a stipulation that Summers would testify he asked Chambers

on September 11, 2006, if Chambers had exchanged coins for cash in Rockford. Chambers stated

he did not and had never been to Rockford. Summers then showed Chambers surveillance photos

of him and Kaiser going to Logli in Rockford, and Chambers stated that he did exchange change

with Kaiser in April. Chambers told Summers that Kaiser gave Chambers the change and wanted

to exchange it, and Chambers only assisted Kaiser because Kaiser did not know how to operate

the machine. Chambers stated he never went inside Cub Foods with Reeder, and Reeder was not

with him in Rockford. Chambers told Summers that he and Kaiser returned home after going to

Rockford. Chambers knew of a residence that Reeder’s girlfriend “was at,” but Chambers had

never been there. Chambers did not know anything about a residential burglary. Prior to April 29,

Reeder told Chambers he knew where to get money so that Chambers could visit his sister. Reeder

did not want to leave the area because his girlfriend was pregnant. Chambers denied involvement

in a burglary and stated the coins he exchanged in Rockford belonged to Kaiser, although he did

not know where they came from.

- 14 - No. 1-23-0229

¶ 61 In surrebuttal, Chambers testified he did not recall if he told Summers that the coins

belonged to Kaiser or Reeder.

¶ 62 In closing, defense counsel argued that the State could not prove Chambers wore shoes that

matched the shoe impression inside the house, because Chambers wore a size 8 shoe. To that point,

counsel argued that Aspinwall was not credible when she testified that Chambers wore size 11 to

13 K-Swiss shoes in 2006 and noted that Aspinwall’s sister was married to Reeder. Counsel argued

that Kaiser was not credible, both because his parents wanted to be reimbursed for the restitution

and the record established that Kaiser repeatedly lied to the police. Counsel further argued that the

State did not establish Chambers was not operating under a mistake of fact about the purpose for

going to the Siedenburg residence and later exchanging the coins.

¶ 63 C. Court’s Finding

¶ 64 The court found Chambers guilty of residential burglary and theft. In ruling, the court noted

that Aspinwall’s testimony was “not persuasive enough” for the court to conclude that Chambers

entered the residence. The court found that Kaiser’s and Chambers’s testimonies were impeached

by Kaiser’s prior criminal convictions and Chambers’s status as a felon, respectively. The court

found that Kaiser’s testimony was believable in part but viewed it with the suspicion required for

accomplice testimony. Chambers’s testimony was not credible “for the most part” due to his

manner of testifying and avoiding answers, and his prior conviction.

¶ 65 The court further concluded that no witness established the shoe size of the burglar, so

arguments about shoe size comparisons were “of little value.” Regardless, Chambers was legally

accountable for burglary, because the evidence demonstrated that Chambers, Reeder, and Kaiser

“hatched” the burglary plan at some point during the afternoon and evening of April 29, 2006. The

court noted that “[Hood] may very well have been the sole individual who had made entry to *** - 15 - No. 1-23-0229

[the residence] but he was at least accountable for the entry and helped carry away the backpack

with the coins.” Further, Chambers was seen in control of $300 in coins and assisted Kaiser in

exchanging the coins for cash. The court noted that the group then stayed in the Dells area, “no

doubt funded in part by the proceeds of the burglary.”

¶ 66 Defense counsel filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the evidence did not establish that

Chambers committed theft or residential burglary, and that the State failed to disprove Chambers’s

assertion that he was acting under a mistake of fact. Following a hearing, the court denied

Chambers’s motion and noted that during the first visit to Siedenburg’s residence, Siedenburg

informed Reeder that there was no reason for him to be at the house. Siedenburg explained that

the family that had lived there had moved, so Chambers could not rely upon a mistake of fact that

Reeder had permission to enter the house.

¶ 67 After a sentencing hearing, the court merged the theft charge into the residential burglary

charge and sentenced Chambers to six years’ imprisonment. Chambers did not file a motion to

reconsider sentence.

¶ 68 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 69 On appeal, Chambers argues the State failed to prove him guilty of residential burglary

because he mistakenly believed that he was assisting a friend to remove items from Siedenburg’s

residence.

¶ 70 The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is “whether,

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have

found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Internal quotation marks

and emphasis omitted.) People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 67. The trier of fact resolves conflicts

in the testimony, weighs the evidence, and draws reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate - 16 - No. 1-23-0229

facts. People v. Brown, 2013 IL 114196, ¶ 48. Accordingly, this court will not retry a defendant or

substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact on the weight of the evidence or the credibility

of witnesses. Id. A reviewing court must allow all reasonable inferences from the record in favor

of the prosecution (People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 280 (2004)), and will not reverse a

conviction unless the evidence is “unreasonable, improbable, or so unsatisfactory as to justify a

reasonable doubt of the Chambers’s guilt.” (People v. Jackson, 232 Ill. 2d 246, 281 (2009) (internal

quotation marks omitted)).

¶ 71 To prove residential burglary as charged, the State had to prove that Chambers, knowingly

and without authority, entered or remained in Siedenburg’s dwelling place with the intent to

commit a felony or theft therein. 720 ILCS 5/19-3(a) (West 2006). Chambers challenges only the

intent element of the offense.

¶ 72 The trial court observed that if Chambers did not commit residential burglary himself, he

could still be legally accountable for the offense. A person is legally accountable for the conduct

of another person if “either before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to

promote or facilitate that commission, he or she solicits, aids, abets, agrees, or attempts to aid that

other person in the planning or commission of the offense.” 720 ILCS 5/5-2(c) (West 2006).

Pursuant to the statute, the State may prove a defendant’s intent by showing either that he shared

the criminal intent of the principal or that there was a common criminal design. People v.

Fernandez, 2014 IL 115527, ¶ 21. If a defendant engages in a common criminal design, any acts

in furtherance of that common design are considered to be acts of all parties and all parties are

equally responsible for the consequences of further acts. Id. ¶ 13.

¶ 73 “In order to demonstrate accountability, the State need not present evidence of a verbal

agreement between co-offenders, nor show that the defendant directly participated in the - 17 - No. 1-23-0229

perpetration of the criminal act.” (Internal citations omitted.) People v. Carr-McKnight, 2020 IL

App (1st) 163245, ¶ 67. Rather, a common design may be inferred from the circumstances

surrounding the crime. People v. Cowart, 2017 IL App (1st) 113085-B, ¶ 34. However, a

defendant’s “mere presence” at the scene is insufficient to establish accountability, even if coupled

with the defendant’s flight from the scene or knowledge that a crime has been committed. People

v. Johnson, 2021 IL App (1st) 171885, ¶ 88.

¶ 74 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could

find that Chambers was guilty of residential burglary under an accountability theory. The State

presented evidence that Chambers traveled with Reeder and Kaiser to Siedenburg’s residence

twice on April 29, 2006. The second time, Chambers assisted Reeder in carrying over $300 worth

of coins from the residence and traveled to different stores to exchange the coins for cash, before

traveling to Wisconsin Dells. Further, Chambers was arrested in September 2006, and during

booking procedures left the police station and fled Illinois for 14 years.

¶ 75 Chambers nevertheless contends that the State did not establish he intended to commit a

theft inside Siedenburg’s residence or that he was accountable for someone who did. Chambers

first argues the evidence was insufficient to prove he entered Siedenburg’s residence. He notes

that Kaiser’s testimony was “thoroughly impeached” by Kaiser’s conviction and status as an

accomplice, inconsistencies in his previous statements to the police, and bias against Chambers.

Further, Chambers alleges the State did not establish his accountability because it did not prove

that he intended to facilitate a crime and no evidence supported a plan between Chambers, Kaiser,

and Reeder to steal the coins. Chambers argues that defense counsel offered the affirmative defense

of mistake of fact during the proceedings to negate the mental state of intent, and the State did not

meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Chambers intended to commit the theft.

- 18 - No. 1-23-0229

¶ 76 Chambers’s contention that Kaiser’s testimony was incredible is nothing more than a

request for this court to reweigh the evidence and independently assess Kaiser’s credibility. The

trial court specifically noted that Kaiser’s testimony was impeached and was viewed with

suspicion because of his status as an accomplice, but that it nonetheless believed the testimony in

part. “[I]t is for the fact finder to judge how flaws in part of the testimony affect the credibility of

the whole.” Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d at 283. Moreover, “[t]he trier of fact may accept or reject all

or part of a witness’s testimony.” People v. Corral, 2019 IL App (1st) 171501, ¶ 85. The court

heard Kaiser’s testimony, including the inconsistencies, and found it believable in part, whereas

the court concluded that Chambers’s testimony was not believable “for the most part.” We find no

reason to disturb the court’s credibility determinations. See Brown, 2013 IL 114196, ¶ 48.

¶ 77 Nevertheless, even discounting Kaiser’s testimony that Chambers entered Siedenburg’s

residence, the record is sufficient to establish that Chambers was accountable for the theft.

Chambers contends he raised the affirmative defense of mistake of fact, as he testified that he

believed Reeder had permission to enter the residence and believed the coins he helped exchange

belonged to Reeder. However, Chambers offers only his own testimony to support his purported

mistake of fact. See People v. Probst, 344 Ill. App. 3d 378, 386 (2003) (finding the defendant’s

testimony alone insufficient to establish the affirmative defense of mistake of fact). “When a

defendant elects to explain the circumstances of a crime, he is bound to tell a reasonable story or

be judged by its improbabilities and inconsistencies.” People v. Nyberg, 275 Ill. App. 3d 570

(1995). The court listened to Chambers’s testimony and found that he was not credible. Again, we

decline to disturb the court’s credibility finding. See Brown, 2013 IL 114196, ¶ 48.

¶ 78 Further, the totality of the evidence supports the reasonable inference that Chambers

colluded with Kaiser and Reeder to steal the coins. Although no testimony established a specific

- 19 - No. 1-23-0229

plan between the men, evidence of a “verbal agreement” is not required. See Carr-McKnight, 2020

IL App (1st) 163245, ¶ 67. The evidence against Chambers is circumstantial, but reasonable

inferences about his assistance may be drawn from it. See Cowart, 2017 IL App (1st) 113085-B,

¶ 34. The State presented evidence that, before April 29, 2006, Reeder had informed Chambers

that he “knew where to get some money.” Chambers, Reeder, and Kaiser then traveled to

Siedenburg’s house for the first time but were met by Siedenburg. On the second occasion they

traveled to the residence, they retrieved a bag containing over $300 worth of coins. Afterward,

Chambers handled the bag containing the coins and the men traveled to multiple Coinstar machines

to exchange the coins for cash. It is undisputed that Chambers personally assisted in using the

Coinstar machines. See People v. Jointer, 180 Ill. App. 3d 364, 369-70 (1989) (the court found the

defendant legally accountable for a burglary of a railroad car where the defendant received and

carried away proceeds from the burglary). Additionally, when Chambers was arrested for the

offense, he fled the police station and did not return to the state until 14 years later. Flight is not

dispositive but provides evidence of Chambers’s consciousness of guilt. See People v. Aljohani,

2021 IL App (1st) 190692, ¶¶ 96-100 (although the mere presence of the defendant at the scene,

coupled with his flight or knowledge of the crime, is not sufficient to establish accountability,

flight from police may be considered in conjunction with other circumstantial evidence).

¶ 79 The State presented evidence that raises the reasonable inference that Chambers, Kaiser,

and Reeder planned, executed, and shared the proceeds of the burglary. The trial court was not

required to accept any possible explanation compatible with Chambers’s innocence and elevate it

to reasonable doubt. See People v. Harris, 2023 IL App (1st) 210754, ¶ 77. We find the inferences

drawn by the trial court to be supported by the evidence, and thus do not disturb them. See Brown,

2013 IL 114196, ¶ 48.

- 20 - No. 1-23-0229

¶ 80 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 81 The evidence supporting Chambers’s conviction for residential burglary is not so

unreasonable or improbable as to create a reasonable doubt of his guilt. Accordingly, we affirm

the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

¶ 82 Affirmed.

- 21 -