People v. Cihak
| Decision Date | 26 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2955,86-2955 |
| Citation | 523 N.E.2d 975,169 Ill.App.3d 606 |
| Parties | , 120 Ill.Dec. 64 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wayne CIHAK, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Daniel E. Radakovich, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.
Richard M. Daley, State's Atty. of Cook County, Chicago , for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant, Wayne Cihak, was charged with using a fictitious name and making a materially false statement on an Illinois application for a certificate of car title. The trial court found defendant guilty. Defendant appeals contending that the court erred in admitting evidence of defendant's pre-arrest silence and that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
On December 19, 1984, Chicago police officer John Miller ("Officer Miller") arrested defendant for knowingly permitting "another to register a vehicle with a fictitious name and address with the Illinois Secretary of State." Defendant's information charged that defendant was in violation of Section 4-105(a)(5) of the Illinois Vehicle Code. Section 4-105(a)(5) provides that it is a violation for
"a person to use a false or fictitious name or address or altered, forged, counterfeited or stolen manufacturer's identification number, or make a material false statement, or fail to disclose a security interest, or conceal any other material fact on any application for any manufacturers statement of origin, certificate of title, junking certificate, salvage certificate, registration card, license plate, temporary registration permit, or registration sticker or commit fraud in connection with any application under this Act." Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 95 1/2, par. 4-105.
The following evidence was adduced at trial. On December 13, 1984, Officer Miller, who was assigned to a special law enforcement team that investigated professional organized auto theft criminal activities, received a telephone call from Sergeant O'Keefe of the Skokie Police Department. Pursuant to this telephone conversation, Officer Miller obtained a 1983 Buick Regal ("Buick") with Illinois license plate number FSN 980 from the Skokie Police Department and brought it to the auto pound.
Officer Miller commenced an investigation of the theft of the Buick. He discovered that the Buick's vehicle identification number ("VIN") was 1G4AJ47AEH102499. The Secretary of State's Office sent Officer Miller a license plate application form and a certified copy of the title for the Buick. While the license number on the chain of title was the same license number that was on the Buick, the VIN number on the chain of title was not the same VIN number that Officer Miller found on the Buick.
The last document on the certified chain of title was an application for an Illinois title dated June 22, 1984. The application referred to the Buick and listed the VIN number as 1G4AJ47A7DH837712. The name of the applicant was John Daves or Davis ("Daves") and the address that appeared below Daves's name was 1520 North Sheridan Road, Wilmette, Illinois 60091. It appeared that Daves had signed the application. The application listed the Buick's seller as Ideal Auto Sales of 2853 South Kedzie and revealed that the Buick's title was to be mailed to C & J Automotive Enterprises, Ltd., 1780 North Milwaukee Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60647.
Upon receiving this information, Officer Miller endeavored to locate Daves. Officer Miller took the driver's license number that was assigned to that name and placed it into the computer. The computer revealed that there was no record of that driver's license number. Officer Miller's partner endeavored to locate Daves at the Wilmette address.
On December 19, 1984, Officer Miller and Sergeant Patrick McCafferty ("Sergeant McCafferty") proceeded to C & J Automotive Enterprises, Ltd., located at 1780 North Milwaukee Avenue in Chicago. Defendant is the co-owner of C & J Automotive Enterprises, Ltd., doing business as Milwaukee Avenue Auto Parts. Defendant was present in the store; Officer Miller and Sergeant McCafferty then questioned defendant.
Officer Miller gave defendant the information regarding the Buick and the fact that the title had been mailed to defendant's address. He asked defendant to explain it. Defendant answered that he remembered it and that John, a friend of his, had asked him to secure an Illinois title for the vehicle and that it was necessary that a registered Illinois dealer apply for an Illinois title for the vehicle. Defendant stated further that he hand carried the application for title to the Secretary of State's Office and that he paid the $550 tax and $3 application fee; Daves later reimbursed him in full.
Officer Miller asked defendant who John Daves or Davis was and defendant responded that Daves owned a body shop on Lawrence Avenue and that defendant had seen Daves at automobile auctions. Officer Miller then asked defendant to telephone Daves so that Officer Miller could speak to him. Defendant called Daves but hung up the phone after defendant was told that "John" was not there and would not be back until later that afternoon.
Officer Miller asked defendant to redial the number so that Officer Miller could confirm what defendant had just told him. Defendant complied; he redialed and handed the telephone over to Officer Miller. Officer Miller did not recognize the voice of the person who answered the telephone, but he asked if there was a person named John Daves or Davis there. The person on the telephone answered that there was no one there with that name. Officer Miller asked who was the owner of the shop and was told that it was John Hernandez.
Officer Miller hung up the telephone and confronted defendant. Officer Miller told defendant that he felt that defendant was trying to deceive him. Officer Miller told defendant that he did not believe that there was such a person as John Daves at that telephone number and that he believed that defendant attempted to deceive him when defendant made the first call and hung up before Officer Miller had a chance to talk to the party. Defendant made no response; he remained silent. At this point, Officer Miller placed defendant under arrest, advised him of his rights, and transported him to the police station at 1121 South State Street in Chicago.
After defendant was brought to the State Street police station, Officer Miller asked defendant if defendant would look at some photographs to see if he could identify the person that he knew as John. Defendant identified the photograph of one Joseph Mack and told Officer Miller that this was the person that he knew as John.
Defendant testified to the following. Defendant is the co-owner of Milwaukee Avenue Auto Parts. Milwaukee Avenue Auto Parts holds a wrecker's, rebuilder's, and dealer's license. Its primary business is selling auto parts, and side businesses include building and repairing automobiles as well as selling them.
Defendant attends automobile auctions regularly and uses his dealer's license to purchase complete cars from various dealers without becoming involved in paying taxes. John (defendant never learned what "John's" last name was) first approached defendant at an auction. Thereafter, John would buy cars and parts from Milwaukee Avenue Auto Parts. At an auction, John asked defendant about a car that John had purchased. The State allegedly would not issue John a title for the car because he was no longer a dealer.
John brought a Minnesota title to defendant along with his application for an Illinois title and bill of sale from Ideal Auto Sales. John filled out and signed the application. The Secretary of State's Office would not accept the application because it was outdated. Defendant received a current application and filled it out himself. Defendant left the original application and the new application at the front of his auto shop near the cash register so that John could sign it. John signed the application and took the original application with him; defendant was not present when John signed the application.
Defendant brought this application to the Secretary of State's Office and paid the $550 tax and $3 application fee from his own funds. The back of the application was stamped with the C & J Auto rubber stamp. Thus, defendant would receive the title after it was processed. About one month later, defendant received the processed title; John then reimbursed defendant and took the title. Defendant, however, did not personally deliver the title to John.
In addition, defendant testified that the law requires him to keep a record book of the cars that he buys and sells. In the record book, defendant records from where and from whom he purchased the car. If he sold or scrapped the car, defendant lists to whom the car was sold or scrapped.
No entry for the Buick existed in defendant's record book. Defendant contended that the Buick was never recorded because defendant's company never bought the Buick. He further testified that he never inquired of John regarding his last name.
After a finding of guilty, the trial judge concluded with the following words:
Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied and the court then conducted a hearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Chapman
...murder when an innocent person would have contradicted the allegations is clearly evidence of guilt. See People v. Cihak (1988), 169 Ill.App.3d 606, 617, 120 Ill.Dec. 64, 523 N.E.2d 975. There is no direct testimony that Chapman hung his head when he was speaking to his father. However, the......
-
People v. Sneed
...for the accused to reply; and (3) a person similarly situated would ordinarily have denied the accusation. People v. Cihak (1988), 169 Ill.App.3d 606, 120 Ill.Dec. 64, 523 N.E.2d 975. The conversation in question occurred while Tina, defendant and Dwayne were playing cards. Thus, it is like......
-
DeMarzo v. Harris (In re Estate of DeMarzo)
...the person to reply and where a person similarly situated would ordinarily have denied the accusation. People v. Cihak, 169 Ill.App.3d 606, 611, 120 Ill.Dec. 64, 523 N.E.2d 975 (1988). According to Panagakis' deposition testimony, he and Patricia were talking about fly fishing and he “jokin......
-
People v. Gagliani
...(1979), 442 U.S. 919, 99 S.Ct. 2843, 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (adoptive admission cases have been discredited); People v. Cihak (1988), 169 Ill.App.3d 606, 614, 120 Ill.Dec. 64, 523 N.E.2d 975; Nolan, 152 Ill.App.3d at 267, 105 Ill.Dec. 336, 504 N.E.2d In summary, we believe that the State improperly......