People v. Lowe

Appellate Court of Illinois

People v. Lowe

313 N.E.2d 286, 20 Ill. App. 3d 1035, 1974 Ill. App. LEXIS 2550

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJune 20, 1974

DocketNo. 12072

StatusPublished

This text of 313 N.E.2d 286 (People v. Lowe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Lowe, 313 N.E.2d 286, 20 Ill. App. 3d 1035, 1974 Ill. App. LEXIS 2550 (Ill. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SMITH

delivered the opinion of the court:

In a bench trial in the Circuit Court of McLean County, the defendant was convicted of the crime of theft under $150 in violation of section 16 — 1(a) of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, sec. 16 — 1(a)), and a fine of $50 imposed. The only issue raised by the defendant was whether or not the evidence established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In oral argument, this court raised the sufficiency of the information filed in this case and it was conceded by the State that the information did not allege, nor did the evidence show the ownership of the property taken. The defendant walked out of the store without paying for a book. The ownership of the book was alleged as follows: “To-wit (CO-OP Bookstore).” It is clear that such allegation is insufficient to allege or to identify a legal entity capable of property ownership. In People v. Hill, 68 Ill.App.2d 369, 216 N.E.2d 212, the allegation of ownership of some men’s shirts and sweaters was alleged to be in “Community Discount Store.” In that case, the conviction was reversed. The court there held that in an indictment information or complaint for theft, the ownership of the property allegedly stolen is a necessary averment; if the store was not a legal entity capable of owning property, the ownership should have been alleged in the individual or individuals who own the store or, if a corporation, the corporate existence should have been alleged and proved.

It is thus apparent that the conceded error is fatal to this information and it is insufficient to support the conviction. Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

CRAVEN and SIMKINS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SMITH

delivered the opinion of the court:

In a bench trial in the Circuit Court of McLean County, the defendant was convicted of the crime of theft under $150 in violation of section 16 — 1(a) of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, sec. 16 — 1(a)), and a fine of $50 imposed. The only issue raised by the defendant was whether or not the evidence established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In oral argument, this court raised the sufficiency of the information filed in this case and it was conceded by the State that the information did not allege, nor did the evidence show the ownership of the property taken. The defendant walked out of the store without paying for a book. The ownership of the book was alleged as follows: “To-wit (CO-OP Bookstore).” It is clear that such allegation is insufficient to allege or to identify a legal entity capable of property ownership. In People v. Hill, 68 Ill.App.2d 369, 216 N.E.2d 212, the allegation of ownership of some men’s shirts and sweaters was alleged to be in “Community Discount Store.” In that case, the conviction was reversed. The court there held that in an indictment information or complaint for theft, the ownership of the property allegedly stolen is a necessary averment; if the store was not a legal entity capable of owning property, the ownership should have been alleged in the individual or individuals who own the store or, if a corporation, the corporate existence should have been alleged and proved.

It is thus apparent that the conceded error is fatal to this information and it is insufficient to support the conviction. Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

CRAVEN and SIMKINS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 N.E.2d 286, 20 Ill. App. 3d 1035, 1974 Ill. App. LEXIS 2550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lowe-illappct-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack