2021 IL 125889
Ill.2021Background
- Defendant Dominik K. Bochenek was charged in Du Page County with identity theft arising from use of Anthony Fatigato’s credit card information to buy cigarettes; the physical acts occurred at a Lake County gas station while the victim resided in Du Page County.
- Before trial, defendant moved to dismiss under 725 ILCS 5/114-1(a)(7), arguing 720 ILCS 5/1-6(t)(3) (venue where victim resides) violated Article I, § 8 of the Illinois Constitution (trial in county where offense alleged to have been committed).
- The trial court denied the motion; the jury convicted defendant of identity theft and granted a directed verdict on the separate unissued-credit-card count.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the statute properly defines where the offense occurs to include where the identifying information is located (victim’s residence) and that constitutionally valid applications of the statute exist.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted review and affirmed, holding the venue provision constitutional because identity theft includes misappropriation of intangible identifying information that can be said to be located at the victim’s residence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 720 ILCS 5/1-6(t)(3) (venue where victim resides) violates Art. I, § 8 (county where offense alleged to have been committed) | Statute is constitutional; Legislature may define where an offense occurs and has defined identity theft to include where the identifying information is located (victim's residence) | Venue provision conflicts with Constitution because the physical acts occurred elsewhere (Lake County); victim's residence is unrelated/arbitrary to where the offense occurred | Statute is constitutional. Identity theft may be deemed committed where the intangible identifying information is located (victim's residence); facial challenge fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Miller, 171 Ill. 2d 330 (1996) (legislature has broad discretion to define crimes and their location)
- Watt v. People, 126 Ill. 9 (1888) (legislature may determine when offenses are local or transitory for venue purposes)
- People v. Montoya, 373 Ill. App. 3d 78 (2007) (identity theft requires knowing misappropriation of another's identification)
- State v. Mayze, 622 S.E.2d 836 (Ga. 2005) (upholding victim-residence venue for identity-fraud statutes)
- Ex parte Egbuonu, 911 So. 2d 748 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) (same; victim-residence venue for identity-theft statutes)