People v. McLain
| Decision Date | 30 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 12854,12854 |
| Citation | 337 N.E.2d 82,32 Ill.App.3d 998 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry McLAIN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Richard J. Wilson, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Springfield, for defendant-appellant.
Basil G. Greanias, State's Atty., Macon County, Decatur, for plaintiff-appellee; Jon C. Baxter, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel.
Defendant was convicted of burglarizing the Decatur Cocktail Lounge and sentenced to 4 to 20 years in the penitentiary. He appeals, contending that it was error to admit evidence of his prior burglary of the same business; that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and that evidence of his confession to the earlier burglary should not have been admitted without a hearing on his motion to suppress that confession.
Defendant's checkbook and driver's license, along with other identification, were found in a storage loft in the cocktail lounge on February 18, 1974, the day after the burglary. The evidence tended to show that the burglary had been committed by someone who entered the building without force, or remained in the building, damaged an interior door breaking into the office, removed cash from a folder on the owner's desk, and effected an exit without damaging the exterior doors.
To show intent, design and knowledge, the State offered evidence that the Lounge had been burglarized in a similar fashion in 1971 and that the defendant had confessed to that crime. According to the State's evidence, the defendant had then admitted wandering into the storage loft to sleep, then burglarizing the lounge in the early morning hours when he awoke. In the 1971 incident, an outside door to the lounge had been broken open from the inside. This evidence was admitted over defendant's objection.
Defendant initially contends it was error to admit evidence of the earlier crime to demonstrate intent, design and knowledge. We cannot agree. The Modus operandi of the burglary was unusual and essentially identical to that of the earlier crime. Moreover, it required a knowledge of the layout of the Decatur Cocktail Lounge, and the commission of the earlier crime was relevant in establishing such knowledge.
We must similarly reject defendant's reasonable doubt contention. He does not advance nor can we construct a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence which would explain the presence of his identification in the lounge loft on the day after the burglary. People v. Johnson, 31 Ill.2d 321, 201 N.E.2d 367.
Defendant next contends it was prejudicial error to refuse to hold a hearing on his motion to suppress the 1971 confession. When defense counsel moved at trial to suppress the confession, the trial court judge denied the motion, saying defendant's guilty plea in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Del Vecchio v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections
...Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Del Vecchio's case departs somewhat from the appellate court's decision in People v. McLain, 32 Ill.App.3d 998, 337 N.E.2d 82 (4th Dist.1975). McLain involved the same sequence as Del Vecchio's: confession, guilty plea, and a second prosecution at which ......
-
L.F., In Interest of
...reveal the reason why defendant was aware of the layout of the burglarized premises, another relevant factor. (See People v. McLain (1975), 32 Ill.App.3d 998, 337 N.E.2d 82.) Thus, there was no error in the admission of the minor's reference to the previous Defendant cursorily states that "......
-
People v. Williams
...so long as the guilty plea was voluntary. People v. Lefler, 38 Ill.2d 216, 220, 230 N.E.2d 827 (1967); see also People v. McLain, 32 Ill. App.3d 998, 1000, 337 N.E.2d 82 (1975). Consequently, the admissibility of defendant's prior guilty plea to attempted murder as evidence at his murder tr......