People v. Abrams
2015 IL App (1st) 133746
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Jerry Abrams, longtime employee and business partner of Fred Lev, was convicted of theft over $500,000 for withdrawing and diverting corporate/business funds totaling about $1.88 million and was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay $1.87 million restitution.
- Lev owned properties and ran "The Fred Lev Company" (Lev sole shareholder); Abrams handled bookkeeping, deposited rents, paid bills, and had check-writing authority; accounts and personal expenses were commingled.
- After discovering discrepancies in 2010 (misrecorded and cashed checks, missing office records), Lev obtained bank statements and hired a forensic accountant who traced about $1.878 million in improper checks paid to Abrams or for his benefit.
- Abrams testified he believed he was entitled to the funds as compensation/commissions and that Lev used corporate accounts for personal expenses; defense argued commingling and shared use of accounts.
- Pretrial, Abrams subpoenaed additional bank/loan records from two banks; the trial court quashed most of those subpoenas as irrelevant or cumulative and admitted a limited set of documents.
- On appeal Abrams challenged sentence excessiveness, denial of bank records, trial-court comments and conduct, and sufficiency of evidence. The appellate court affirmed conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive sentence / proportionality | Sentence within statutory Class 1 range; trial court properly weighed aggravation and mitigation | 12-year term disproportionate, violates Eighth Amendment and state proportionate-penalties clause; defendant old and mitigating factors outweigh aggravators | Affirmed — within statutory range; no abuse of discretion; court properly considered factors and defendant’s lack of remorse and perceived entitlement justified sentence |
| Quashed subpoenas / bank records | Excluded records were irrelevant or cumulative; trial court correctly limited production | Records were admissible to rebut State, show Lev’s sophistication, and impeach Lev (bias/motive) | Affirmed — records either irrelevant, too remote, or cumulative; limited Hyde Park pages admitted; quash not manifestly erroneous |
| Trial-court comments and conduct | Court’s remarks did not prejudice defendant; any issues forfeited or harmless | Judge’s remarks (e.g., “That’s not impeaching,” “Ask your next question,” accusing perjury) showed bias and prejudiced jury | Affirmed — remarks were brief/contextual, not a material factor or prejudicial; perjury observation proper for aggravation at sentencing |
| Sufficiency of evidence | Prosecution presented bank records, forensic accountant’s summaries, and inferences showing Abrams obtained unauthorized control of over $500,000 | Defendant argued funds belonged to The Fred Lev Company and not Lev personally; prosecution failed to prove unauthorized control beyond reasonable doubt | Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, evidence (including commingling and alter-ego findings) supported conviction for theft over $500,000 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Boclair, 225 Ill. App. 3d 331 (Ill. App. Ct.) (presumption that sentence within statutory range is proper)
- People v. Stacey, 193 Ill. 2d 203 (Ill. 2000) (sentencing court may consider defendant’s credibility, demeanor, and character)
- People v. Quintana, 332 Ill. App. 3d 96 (Ill. App. Ct.) (trial court need not detail exact thought process when imposing sentence)
- People v. Hill, 408 Ill. App. 3d 23 (Ill. App. Ct.) (presume trial court considered mitigating evidence absent contrary indication)
- People v. Shaw, 351 Ill. App. 3d 1087 (Ill. App. Ct.) (duty of trial court to balance mitigating and aggravating factors)
- People v. Zaccagnini, 29 Ill. 2d 408 (Ill. 1963) (examples of improper judicial conduct — cited and distinguished)
- People v. Ward, 113 Ill. 2d 516 (Ill. 1986) (defendant’s lack of remorse and attitude may inform sentencing and prospects for rehabilitation)
- Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (Ill. 1984) (presumption that missing portions of record would support trial court’s ruling)
- United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1978) (trial court may consider a defendant’s perjurious testimony in aggravation)