People v. Clark

• Decision Date: 20 June 1979
• Docket Number: No. 15270,15270
• Citation: 391 N.E.2d 576,73 Ill.App.3d 85
• Parties: , 29 Ill.Dec. 313 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karl CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 576

391 N.E.2d 576

73 Ill.App.3d 85, 29 Ill.Dec. 313

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karl CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15270.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

June 20, 1979.

Richard J. Wilson, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Karen Munoz, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Springfield, for defendant-appellant.

C. Joseph Cavanagh, State's Atty., Marc D. Towler, Deputy Director State's Attys. Appellate Service Com'n, Karen L. Boyaris, Staff Atty., Springfield, for plaintiff-appellee.

REARDON, Presiding Justice:

Defendant, Karl Clark, was charged by information with burglary and felony theft in violation of sections 19-1(a) and 16-1(a)(1) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, pars. 19-1(a), 16-1(a)(1)). Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of both burglary and theft and, thereafter, sentenced to 2 to 6 years' imprisonment. The defendant challenges his convictions, contending: (1) The evidence failed to establish his guilt of burglary beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the State's attempt to establish his prior convictions by Cross-examination was improper and prejudicial; (3) the trial court erred in refusing to give his tendered instruction concerning accomplice testimony; (4) his conviction of theft should be vacated because that crime is a lesser included offense of burglary; and (5) alternatively, his conviction of theft should be reduced to a misdemeanor because the jury was not instructed on the issue of the value of the property.

As to the first issue, the defendant primarily argues that there was no direct evidence of his guilt of the burglary and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to overcome reasonable doubt. The evidence against the defendant consisted essentially of proof of his possession of stolen property which was taken as the result of a burglary.

Illinois State Police Officer William Ryan testified that on September 4, 1977, at approximately 9 a. m., he arrested the defendant in connection with his investigation of a separate offense. After the defendant and the passenger in the automobile being driven by defendant, Robin O'Shey Hughes, were placed under arrest, Officer Ryan examined the interior of the vehicle. He discovered a lunch box full of pennies on the floor on the passenger side of the front seat. He also observed a pair of boots and a yellow sheet in the back seat. The sheet was wrapped around a collection of articles, including watches, coins, and key chains. On a search of the trunk of the automobile, with the consent of the owner (Robert Clark, the defendant's uncle), the police seized several pieces of stereo equipment. According to the defendant's uncle, the defendant had borrowed his automobile approximately two hours prior to his arrest. None of the items of property seized by the police were in the vehicle at the time he had loaned it to the defendant.

The defendant initially told Officer Ryan that the stereo equipment and other property belonged to him. Later, however, defendant purportedly told Ryan that the property was owned by Bill Allgood, who had asked the defendant to sell it for him. Springfield Detective Roy Barnett also questioned the defendant later on the afternoon of his arrest. Defendant denied stealing the property in question and claimed that a third person had given him the property to sell. He refused, however, to name this individual, stating that he feared for his life.

John W. Allgood identified the property recovered from the Clark automobile as among a number of items taken from his home which had previously been broken into. Allgood, his father, and several friends had left Springfield early on the morning of September 3, 1977, for a 21/2-day hunting trip. Allgood, who was socially acquainted with the defendant, stated that defendant, among others, knew of this hunting trip. The total value of the items found in defendant's possession was approximately $900, according to Allgood. He had not given defendant permission to possess or sell this property. Robin O'Shey Hughes, the passenger arrested with defendant, testified that defendant picked her up in his automobile in the early morning of September 4, 1977. Sometime thereafter they arrived at an apartment which she assumed was the defendant's. She and the defendant went into the apartment and she helped him carry several pieces of stereo equipment to his car. When the defendant's car later broke down, he went to his uncle's house and borrowed his uncle's Cadillac. When he returned they transferred the goods from defendant's car to his uncle's. Sometime later, the two were arrested at a Clark oil station by Officer Ryan.

Hughes admitted that at the time of trial she was on probation for the unlawful possession of a controlled substance. She further acknowledged that on September 4, she had walked out of a hospital where she had been previously admitted and that she might have been on medication at that time.

The record also disclosed that the defendant had given the police permission to search his apartment, but none of the other property taken from the Allgood residence, including guns, a coin collection, and a colored television set, was found there. A rifle taken in the burglary was later recovered by the Missouri State Police from Anthony Garzada.

The defendant, testifying on his own behalf, denied committing the burglary and denied any knowledge that the property found in the automobile was stolen. He similarly denied making the alleged inconsistent explanations concerning his possession of the property. His version of the events was essentially that Hughes had placed the goods in his automobile. He testified that he had picked Hughes up at the hospital at her request. They first picked up Hughes' ex-husband and drove him to Sherman, Illinois. Hughes and the defendant returned to Springfield and at the direction of Hughes he drove to a specified residence where Hughes' brother, Cecil Maynard, was staying. Hughes purportedly told the defendant that Maynard had some stereo equipment and that they could make some money by selling it. The defendant claimed that Hughes told him after their arrest that Maynard "apologized about the merchandise being stolen." Maynard was deceased at the time of the trial. According to defendant, he remained in his car while Hughes went inside the apartment, picked up the stereo equipment, and loaded it in his car. He also stated that after his vehicle had broken down, Hughes, without his assistance, transferred the stereo equipment and other property from his car to his uncle's.

Defendant essentially contends that the evidence merely demonstrates that he knew the victim, John Allgood, would be gone on a hunting trip and that he (defendant) had possession of some, but not all, of the articles taken from Allgood's home. He contends that these facts alone are insufficient to prove his guilt of burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant seeks support for this argument by reason of the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury that: "If you find that the defendant had exclusive possession of recently stolen property, and there was no reasonable explanation of his possession, you may infer that the defendant obtained possession of the property by Burglary."

The court concluded that the inference suggested by this instruction, which was an adaptation of Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction, Criminal No. 13.21 (1968) (hereinafter cited as IPI Criminal) was proper as to a charge of theft but not burglary. We disagree. (See People v. Franceschini (1960), 20 Ill.2d 126, 169 N.E.2d 244.) Thus, even though the jury was not so instructed, it nevertheless could have drawn this inference and upon the record here the evidence would be sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction.

The defendant's possession of the stolen property could readily be held "exclusive" as that term is construed to be relative. The defendant was the driver and had control of the vehicle in which the goods were stored and, therefore, had possession of those goods. (See People v. Curtis (1977), 45 Ill.App.3d 771, 4 Ill.Dec. 375, 360 N.E.2d 122.) Further, the inference of guilt would not be prohibited merely because there was another occupant in the vehicle, since joint possession is sufficient to constitute "exclusive possession." People v. Sims (1966), 77 Ill.App.2d 33, 222 N.E.2d 137; People v. Ray (1967), 80 Ill.App.2d 310, 225 N.E.2d 467; see generally People v. Harris (1972), 53 Ill.2d 83, 87, 288 N.E.2d 873, 875.

We similarly believe the defendant's testimonial explanation for his possession of the property would not preclude resort to the inference in question here. The jury is not obligated to believe a defendant's explanation. The instruction itself refers to possession where there is no Reasonable explanation thereof. This qualification necessarily implies that a question of fact may exist concerning an explanation and, thus, the inference of guilt will not be overcome by simply any explanation. The cases support our conclusion that it was for the jury to determine whether the defendant's possession was reasonably explained. (People v. Burris (1969), 116 Ill.App.2d 79, 253 N.E.2d 628, Cert. denied (1970), 400 U.S. 835, 91 S.Ct. 71, 27 L.Ed.2d 67; People v. Harris (1971), 131 Ill.App.2d 824, 268 N.E.2d 724, Aff'd (1972), 53 Ill.2d 83, 288 N.E.2d 873.) Finally, although approximately 27 hours elapsed between the earliest time the burglary could have been committed and the period when defendant had possession of the goods, the possession was sufficiently recent within the case law interpretation of that term. E. g., People v. Pride (1959), 16 Ill.2d 82, 156 N.E.2d 551; Harris.

In view of the applicability of the inference of guilt, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence is reduced to one of credibility. The weight to be accorded the defendant's explanation and testimony and that of...