People v. Lymore
| Decision Date | 28 September 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 36351,36351 |
| Citation | 185 N.E.2d 158,25 Ill.2d 305 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Clarence LYMORE, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
John P. McAuliffe, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago , for defendant in error.
The defendant, Clarence Lymore, was indicted in the criminal court of Cook County on two counts of burglary and one count of receiving stolen property. He was tried before a jury, found guilty in a general verdict and sentenced to a term of not less than three nor more than six years in the penitentiary.
Defendant now brings writ of error contending that the ownership and possession of the premises allegedly burglarized was not established; that there is no proof that what the defendant was charged with taking was in fact taken; that having been found guilty by a general verdict of a charge which included that of receiving stolen property he could not be found guilty of burglary; and that he was not proved guilty beyond a resonable doubt.
The facts are that about 2:30 in the morning of August 18, 1960, an American District Telegraph patrolman was called to a liquor store at 4260 S. Drexel Boulevard in the city of Chicago. A broken window in the store occupied by Bernie's Liquor Stores, Inc. had actuated the A.D.T. alarm. There was a hole in the window about three feet in diameter. The defendant was standing immediately in front of the hole. A minute or two later a Chicago police sergeant also answered the alarm. He saw the defendant in front of the store and also observed a group of other people.
The secretary of the corporation, Bernie's Liquor Stores, Inc., testified that the corporation operated the business at 4260 S. Drexel Boulevard. The police officer testified that the store was occupied by Bernie's Liquor Stores, Inc. The defendant himself testified that he saw a hole in the window of Bernie's Liquor Stores, Inc. We think it is sufficiently well established that the premises were occupied by and in the possession of Bernie's Liquor Stores, Inc. We held in People v. Stewart, 23 Ill.2d 161, 177 N.E.2d 237, that the sole purpose of the ownership allegation in an indictment for burglary is to enable the accused to prepare for trial and to plead former acquittal or conviction under the indictment in bar of another prosecution for the same offense. It is not necessary to prove legal title to the premises. There can be no question that Bernie's Liquor Stores, Inc., occupied a building which was burglarized.
The defendant contends that because the third count of the indictment charged him with receiving stolen property, a general finding of guilty in the verdict necessarily found him guilty of that charge, and that inasmuch as the charge of receiving stolen property is incompatible with the charge of burglary the general verdict cannot be sustained. We cannot agree with this proposition. A general finding of guilty is presumed to be based on any good count in the indictment to which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Morgan
...in each count * * *.'" People v. Thompkins, 121 Ill.2d 401, 455, 117 Ill.Dec. 927,521 N.E.2d 38 (1988), quoting People v. Lymore, 25 Ill.2d 305, 308, 185 N.E.2d 158 (1962). Thus, a general verdict finding a defendant guilty of murder, where the defendant was charged with intentional, knowin......
-
People v. Thompkins
...is authorized to be inflicted for the offense charged in any one or more of the counts, the verdict must be sustained." (People v. Lymore (1962), 25 Ill.2d 305, 308 (See also People v. Jones (1975), 60 Ill.2d 300, 309, 325 N.E.2d 601.) Applying the above rule, we conclude that the jury's re......
-
People v. Cardona
...the intent necessary for intentional murder. The courts ostensibly based their holdings on a principle announced in People v. Lymore (1962), 25 Ill.2d 305, 185 N.E.2d 158. In that case, the jury returned a general verdict of guilty on a complaint charging defendant with two counts of burgla......
-
People v. Perry
...to any instructional error based on the one-good-count presumption). Under the one-good-count rule established in People v. Lymore, 25 Ill.2d 305, 185 N.E.2d 158 (1962), a general finding of guilt may be affirmed where proof is sufficient on one good count in an indictment. When an indictme......