People v. Felters

• Decision Date: 16 March 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-272,81-272
• Citation: People v. Felters, 433 N.E.2d 368, 105 Ill.App.3d 1066, 60 Ill.Dec. 571 (Ill. App. 1982)
• Parties: , 60 Ill.Dec. 571 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles V. FELTERS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 368

433 N.E.2d 368

105 Ill.App.3d 1066, 60 Ill.Dec. 571

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles V. FELTERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 81-272.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

March 16, 1982.

Mary Robinson, Deputy State Appellate Defender, John J. Barrett, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Elgin, for defendant-appellant.

Dennis Schumacher, State's Atty., Oregon, Phyllis J. Perko, State's Attys. Appellate Service Commission, Elgin, for plaintiff-appellee.

SEIDENFELD, Presiding Justice:

The defendant appeals from his conviction of burglary after a jury trial and from the 14 year sentence imposed. He contends he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, claiming that there was no evidence corroborating the inference arising from his possession of property stolen in the burglary.

There was evidence that the Russell residence had been gone through some time between when a family member left at approximately 11 a. m. on December 15, 1980, and when a family member returned at about 3 p. m. on that date. Fifty dollars in silver half dollars which had been saved in a tin, books of blank, unsigned checks, and two savings accounts' passbooks were missing. A basement window had been "kicked in." At about 3:17 p. m. on December 15, the defendant was identified as having inquired as to the balance in the Russell checking account. He cashed a missing check drawn on the owner's account for slightly less than the balance. There was evidence that it takes 15 or 20 minutes to go between the Russell home and the bank. About 30 minutes after cashing the check defendant again appeared at the bank and sought to withdraw some $8,000 from the savings accounts, but drove away when there was a delay. The only evidence offered by defendant was the testimony of a witness to rebut the testimony of the bank teller as to the clothing worn by the person involved.

It is established that unexplained possession of recently stolen property may support an inference of guilt of the crime of burglary only if (1) there is a rational connection between the possession and the participation in the burglary, (2) the guilt of burglary is more likely than not to flow from the possession of the burglary proceeds, and (3) there is corroborating evidence of guilt. People v. Housby, 84 Ill.2d 415, 424, 50 Ill.Dec. 834, 420 N.E.2d 151 (1981).

The evidence establishes that the Russells' home had been forcibly entered and that the burglar took only cash, checks, and bank books, passing up more saleable goods such as guns and television sets which were left untouched. While there was no exact way for the jury to fix a precise time when the burglary took place, they could find from the circumstances that there was a short time interval between the completion of the burglary and the defendant's appearance at the bank on the first occasion.

It is of course possible that defendant found the checks and passbooks after they were discarded by a burglar who kept only the coins, or that the defendant purchased the items. However, it is not probable that a burglar who apparently planned in advance to steal only cash and bank documents would change his mind immediately after the crime, leaving the stolen items where they were necessarily quickly discovered by defendant. Defendant obviously was not an...