People v. Pettit
| Decision Date | 23 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 58720,58720 |
| Citation | 78 Ill.Dec. 157,101 Ill.2d 309,461 N.E.2d 991 |
| Parties | , 78 Ill.Dec. 157 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Steven PETTIT et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
G. Joseph Weller, Deputy Defender, Kathleen J. Hamill, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Elgin, for appellees.
Neil Hartigan, Atty. Gen., State of Ill., Chicago, Phyllis J. Perko, Deputy Director, Cynthia Schneider, Staff Atty., State's Attys. Appellate Service Com'n, Elgin, for appellant; Daniel D. Doyle, State's Atty., Rockford, of counsel.
Defendants, Steven Pettit, Gerald Rein and Robert Carr, Jr., were arrested on March 20, 1981, and charged with the offense of home invasion (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 12-11(a)(1)). Defendant Pettit was also charged with aggravated battery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 12-4(b)(1)). Pettit's motion for severance was granted, and he was convicted of both charges in a bench trial in the circuit court of Winnebago County on July 15, 1981. Pettit received concurrent sentences of 10 years for home invasion and 4 years for aggravated battery. Defendants Carr and Rein were convicted of home invasion in a bench trial on July 15, 1981, and sentenced to 8 years in prison. The cases were consolidated on appeal. The appellate court reversed the three defendants' convictions for home invasion but sustained Pettit's conviction for aggravated battery (114 Ill.App.3d 876, 70 Ill.Dec. 697, 449 N.E.2d 1044), and we granted the State's petition for leave to appeal (87 Ill.2d R. 315(a)).
On March 17, 1981, Steven Pettit, Gerald Rein and Robert Carr, Jr., visited the home of Duane Moore, a supplier of illegal drugs. Moore was confined to a wheelchair and had sold the three defendants drugs that did not meet with their approval. The three defendants told Moore that they wanted to buy 200 "hits" of LSD, and Moore called his supplier, Ned Bassett, and asked him to bring the LSD to Moore's apartment. When Bassett arrived, Pettit, Rein and Carr drew guns and demanded the address of Bassett's drug source. The three defendants forced Moore and Basset to accompany them to the home of Bassett's supplier, Steve Anderson. Moore was carried to the defendants' truck in his wheelchair.
The five men went to the home of Steve Anderson, who lived in the first floor of a two-story house at 1413 North Court Street in Rockford. The house was divided into two apartments; Anderson lived in the first floor of the house with his girlfriend and 4-year-old son. Another couple, George Meek and Mary Lynn, lived in the second floor of the house. On March 17, 1981, Anderson and his girlfriend were not home, but Mary Lynn was babysitting for Anderson's son. Pettit, Rein and Carr forced their way into the first-floor apartment, and Mary Lynn began screaming. Meek came downstairs and was ordered to lie face down on the floor. Moore and Bassett were brought in from the truck.
The intruders spent the next two hours waiting for the return of Anderson. Pettit testified that he had drunk nearly a case of beer before arriving at Anderson's apartment, as well as ingesting stimulants and depressants. Pettit brought a 12-pack of beer into the first-floor apartment and drank 8 or 10 more beers, while Meek drank two beers. Pettit became impatient and demanded that Mary Lynn call Anderson at the City Limits bar in Beloit, Wisconsin. Lynn had told Pettit that Anderson might be found there. Pettit told Mary Lynn to tell Anderson that his son was choking on a bottle cap, and that Anderson should return home immediately. Lynn was not able to get in contact with Anderson.
Pettit then told Lynn to accompany him upstairs to see if anyone was in the second-floor apartment. When they found the second-floor apartment was deserted, Pettit ordered the rest of the entourage upstairs. Lynn and the child were ordered into the bedroom, and Meek was told to kneel down. Pettit carried Moore upstairs and placed him in a chair. Both trials produced conflicting testimony concerning subsequent events, but some common threads emerge from the testimony. Pettit grew impatient and began harassing Ned Bassett by pushing him and punching him in the face. Pettit drew his pistol and began choking Basset with an electric cord. Basset began to fight back, and he bit Pettit in the leg. During the course of the struggle, Pettit's gun went off twice. The first bullet hit the ceiling and the second bullet hit Bassett in the right leg. Pettit, Rein and Carr left the apartment, and took Moore and Bassett with them. The three defendants took Moore and Bassett to Moore's home and left them there. Bassett was hospitalized for his bullet wound and facial injuries.
It is important to note that the information charged the three defendants with home invasion of the second-floor apartment, not the first-floor apartment. Pettit was charged with aggravated battery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 12-4(b)(1)), but no other charges were brought against the three defendants. Pettit's conviction for aggravated battery is not the subject of this appeal, and we must confine our analysis to the specific proscriptions of the home-invasion statute (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 12-11(a)(1)).
Three issues are presented on appeal: (1) Does the home-invasion statute require that the victims be inside the invaded home at the time of the invasion? (2) Were victims present in the home in the case at bar? (3) Was the trial judge biased against the defendant Pettit?
Resolution of the first issue requires close scrutiny of the home-invasion statute:
"Sec. 12-11. Home Invasion.
(a) A person who is not a peace officer acting in the line of duty commits home invasion when without authority he or she knowingly enters the dwelling place of another when he or she knows or has reason to know that one or more persons is present and
(1) While armed with a dangerous weapon uses force or threatens the imminent use of force upon any person or persons within such dwelling place whether or not injury occurs * * *." Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 12-11(a)(1).
The case before us presents a situation that does not conform to the precise language of the statute. When Pettit, Rein and Carr "invaded" the second-floor apartment, the dwelling was deserted. The statute specifically requires the presence of one or more persons to constitute a violation. The State argues that recent case law supports the contention that constructive presence satisfies the requirements of the home-invasion statute. In People v. Pavic (1982), 104 Ill.App.3d 436, 60 Ill.Dec. 175, 432 N.E.2d 1074, the defendant was convicted of several incidents of rape, deviate sexual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metheny v. State
...used in rape of victim remained in effect when money taken from victim's purse nearby), overruled in part by People v. Pettit, 101 Ill.2d 309, 78 Ill.Dec. 157, 461 N.E.2d 991 (1984); State v. Myers, 230 Kan. 697, 703-04, 640 P.2d 1245, 1250 (1982) (manslaughter slaying of victim during argu......
-
People v. Jones
...taken." (134 Ill.2d R. 615(b)(1).) These rules are to be construed according to their plain language (see People v. Pettit (1984), 101 Ill.2d 309, 313, 78 Ill.Dec. 157, 461 N.E.2d 991) and should not be interpreted in a fashion that renders their terms meaningless or superfluous (Harris v. ......
-
People v. Conley
... ... Boykin (1983), 94 Ill.2d 138, 141, 68 Ill.Dec. 321, 445 N.E.2d 1174), and the language should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. (Steppan, 105 Ill.2d at 317, 85 Ill.Dec. 495, 473 N.E.2d 1300; People v ... Page 142 ... [134 Ill.Dec. 859] Pettit (1984), 101 Ill.2d 309, 313, 78 Ill.Dec. 157, 461 N.E.2d 991.) The defendant urges the court to adopt the definition found in Webster's Third New International Dictionary which defines disability as an "inability to do [187 Ill.App.3d 240] something." The State refers to additional language ... ...
-
People v. Mcneal
...outside their home. The defendant in Thomas, like defendant here, relied on the supreme court's decision in People v. Pettit, 101 Ill.2d 309, 78 Ill.Dec. 157, 461 N.E.2d 991 (1984), as support. Thomas, 384 Ill.App.3d at 899, 323 Ill.Dec. 914, 894 N.E.2d 940. “In Pettit, the defendants were ......