People v. Pierce

• Decision Date: 23 August 2006
• Docket Number: No. 4-05-0418.,4-05-0418.
• Citation: 854 N.E.2d 311,304 Ill.DEC. 969
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio D. PIERCE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

854 N.E.2d 311

304 Ill.DEC. 969

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio D. PIERCE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-05-0418.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

August 23, 2006.

Justice KNECHT delivered the opinion of the court:

Following a jury trial, defendant, Antonio D. Pierce, was convicted of theft from the person (720 ILCS 5/16-1 (West 2004)) and sentenced to six years' imprisonment. On appeal from his conviction, defendant argues the court erred by modifying the Illinois pattern jury instruction (IPI) for theft from the person to include theft of property "from the person or presence of another." We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 13, 2004, Robert Gallaher went to the Silver Moon Tavern in Quincy, Illinois. Gallaher sat at the bar and purchased beer from the bartender, Linda Sheehan. To pay Sheehan for his beer, Gallaher placed $50 on the bar directly in front of him. Gallaher testified he had his hand on the money while the money was on the bar. After he paid for his drinks, several twenties were in front of him.

Defendant entered the bar and approached Gallaher. Defendant offered to sell Gallaher cigarettes. Gallaher declined. Gallaher then removed his hand from the money to light a cigarette. A surveillance tape from the bar shows the victim intermittently placing his left hand on his money while holding a cigarette in his right hand. Defendant grabbed the money and ran from the bar. The surveillance tape confirmed the victim's and the bartender's testimony.

At the jury conference, the State offered modified versions of Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, Nos. 13.09 and 13.10 (4th ed.2000) (hereinafter IPI Criminal 4th). The State's proposed instruction added the phrase "or presence" to the IPI. For example, the modified version of IPI Criminal 4th No. 13.09 read as follows:

"A person commits the offense of theft from the person when he knowingly obtains unauthorized control over the property by taking said property from the person or presence of another and intends to deprive the owner permanently of the use or benefit of the property." (Emphasis added.)

Defendant objected to the proposed modifications. Defendant argued the committee had not added "or presence" to the IPI and no decision from this court supported the modification. The court, citing People v. Jackson, 158 Ill.App.3d 394, 110 Ill.Dec. 746, 511 N.E.2d 923 (1987), and People v. Harrell, 342 Ill.App.3d 904, 277 Ill.Dec. 354, 795 N.E.2d 1022 (2003), agreed with the State and ordered the modified instructions given.

The jury found defendant guilty of theft from the person. The court sentenced defendant as stated. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

Defendant argues the trial court erred by not using the pattern instructions to describe the theft-from-the-person statute. Defendant contends the trial court's addition of "or presence" was erroneous because it was an inaccurate statement of the law. Defendant contends the language in the theft-from-the-person statute is plain and unambiguous: theft "from the person" simply means theft of property attached to the person. By adding the words "or presence," defendant contends the court improperly expanded the theft-from-the-person offense to include conduct not contemplated by the legislature.

The State argues the instruction was proper because theft from the person is properly interpreted as including theft from the person's presence.

Generally, trial courts must use pattern instructions when "an appropriate IPI instruction exists on a subject upon which the trial court has determined the jury should be instructed." People v. Pollock, 202 Ill.2d 189, 212, 269 Ill.Dec. 197, 780 N.E.2d 669, 682 (2002). The instructions

"were `painstakingly drafted with the use of simple, brief[,] and unslanted language so as to clearly and concisely state the law,' and, for that reason, `the use of additional instructions on a subject already covered by IPI would defeat the goal that all instructions be simple, brief, impartial[,] and free from argument.'" Pollock, 202 Ill.2d at 212, 269 Ill.Dec. 197, 780 N.E.2d at 682, quoting People v. Haywood, 82 Ill.2d 540, 545, 45 Ill.Dec. 932, 413 N.E.2d 410, 413 (1980).

Trial courts have discretion to give a nonpattern jury instruction. See Pollock, 202 Ill.2d at 211, 269 Ill.Dec. 197, 780 N.E.2d at 682. When courts do so, the nonpattern instruction should be "an accurate, simple, brief, impartial, and nonargumentative statement of the law." Pollock, 202 Ill.2d at 211, 269 Ill.Dec. 197, 780 N.E.2d at 682. If it is not, we may find the trial court abused its discretion in giving the nonpattern instruction. See Pollock, 202 Ill.2d at 211, 269 Ill.Dec. 197, 780 N.E.2d at 682.

In this case, the question of whether the jury instruction was proper hinges on whether the addition of "or presence" is an accurate statement of the law. This is a matter of statutory construction, a matter we review de novo. See People v. Whitney, 188 Ill.2d 91, 98, 241 Ill.Dec. 770, 720 N.E.2d 225, 229 (1999).

Our goal in construing statutes "is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent." People v. Dixon, 359 Ill. App.3d 938, 941, 296 Ill.Dec. 572, 835 N.E.2d 925, 928 (2005), citing Whitney, 188 Ill.2d at 97, 241, 770, 720 N.E.2d at 228. The best means for satisfying this goal is to examine the language of the statute. When the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, we will give effect to its plain meaning. See Dixon, 359 Ill.App.3d at 941, 296 Ill.Dec. 572, 835 N.E.2d at 928. When, however, the language is ambiguous, we "may consider other extrinsic aids for construction, including legislative history, to resolve the ambiguity and determine legislative intent." Whitney, 188 Ill.2d at 97-98, 241 Ill.Dec. 770, 720 N.E.2d at 228. We are also mindful of the general rule to strictly construe penal statutes in the defendant's favor. See Whitney, 188 Ill.2d at 98, 241 Ill.Dec. 770, 720 N.E.2d at 228.

Section 16-1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/16-1 (West 2004)) defines theft. One of the definitions, applicable here, is that one commits theft when he or she knowingly "[o]btains or exerts unauthorized control over property of the owner" and "[i]ntends to deprive the owner permanently of the use or benefit of the property." 720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(1)(A) (West 2004). "Theft of property from the person" is a sentencing enhancement. See 720 ILCS 5/16-1(b)(4) (West 2004) ("Theft of property from the person not exceeding $300 in value * * * is a Class 3 felony"). While "[t]heft of property not from the person" when the value of the property does not exceed $300 is a Class A misdemeanor, "[t]heft of property from the person" in the same amount is a Class 3 felony. See 720 ILCS 5/16-1(b)(1), (b)(4) (West 2004).

We find the plain language of the theft-from-the-person statute does not support defendant's view. A reasonable reading of the statute applies to the situation here. The money was directly in front of the victim, and the money was snatched just after the victim removed his hands from it.

Defendant emphasizes the difference between the theft-from-the-person statute and the robbery statute. The robbery statute states one "commits robbery when he or she takes property * * * from the person or presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force." (Emphasis added.) 720 ILCS 5/18-1(a) (West 2004). Defendant contends the inclusion of the "presence" language in the robbery statute, but the omission of the same language in the theft-from-the-person statute, shows legislative intent to impose a harsher penalty for theft from the person's body. Defendant contends this interpretation of the language in the two statutes complies with the principle that courts construe statutes so no phrase or word is rendered meaningless. See People v. Parvin, 125 Ill.2d 519, 525, 127 Ill.Dec. 731, 533 N.E.2d 813, 815 (1988).

Before the current version of the robbery statute, the language was limited to "from the person of another." See People v. Braverman, 340 Ill. 525, 530, 173 N.E. 55, 57 (1930) ("`Robbery,' as defined by the statute, is the felonious and violent taking of money, goods[,] or other valuable thing, from the person of another by force or intimidation"). The Supreme Court of Illinois in Braverman examined common law and concluded "from the person" included the taking of property in the possession or control of the person robbed. Braverman, 340 Ill. at 531, 173 N.E. at 57. Because of the Braverman interpretation of the robbery statute, the statute was changed to incorporate "presence." See 720 ILCS Ann. 5/18-1, Committee Comments 1961, at 6 (Smith-Hurd 2003).

We do not believe defendant is correct that to construe the theft-from-the-person statute as the State would have us do renders the phrase "or presence" in the robbery statute meaningless. The Committee Comments indicate the addition of "or presence" to the robbery statute did not change the law:

"This paragraph codifies the law in Illinois on robbery. No change is intended. * * * `. . . or presence' is added to incorporate the court's holding in People v. Braverman * * *." (Emphasis added.) 720 ILCS Ann. 5/18-1, Committee Comments 1961, at 6 (Smith-Hurd 2003).

The "or presence" language thus clarified the law after a defendant's attempt to avoid a robbery conviction when the property taken was not on the victim, but in the victim's presence and control (see Braverman, 340 Ill. at 531, 173 N.E. at 57).

Defendant further urges this court to follow People v. Williams, 42 Ill.App.3d 134, 355 N.E.2d 597 (1976), which concluded the theft-from-the-person statute necessitated the property be taken from the victim's body or clothes. In Williams, the First District considered the appeal of a defendant convicted of attempt (robbery). The defendant argued, in part, his conviction "was improper because there was no evidence that [he] used force...