People v. Bradford
2016 IL 118674
Ill.2016Background
- Jesse Bradford was charged with burglary for "knowingly and without authority remaining" in a Bloomington Walmart with intent to commit theft after shoplifting several items and doing a fraudulent no-receipt return. He was convicted after a bench trial and sentenced to three years.
- Facts at trial: Bradford entered during business hours, remained in public areas, returned two DVDs for a gift card, used that card to pay for a companion’s purchase, placed a hat and shoes on his person after removing price tags, and had several stolen items when detained. He confessed to multiple thefts.
- Defense moved for a directed verdict arguing the evidence supported retail theft but not burglary because Bradford never exceeded the scope of his authority to be in the store. The motion was denied.
- The appellate court affirmed, adopting the State’s view that forming an intent to steal while in a public store converts the defendant’s presence into “without authority” remaining.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted leave, construed the burglary statute, and reversed, holding the State failed to prove Bradford ‘‘remained within’’ the store without authority as required for burglary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether forming an intent to steal while lawfully in a store makes one’s continued presence "without authority" for purposes of burglary by remaining | State: A person who remains in a public store with intent to steal is "without authority"; evidence of continuing thefts or lingering is sufficient | Bradford: "Remaining within" requires exceeding physical authority (e.g., hiding until closing, entering off-limits areas, or refusing to leave); ordinary shoplifting during open hours is retail theft, not burglary | Court: "Remaining" means exceeding physical authority to be on premises; forming intent alone in public areas during business hours does not satisfy "without authority." Conviction reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Weaver, 41 Ill.2d 434 (1968) (entry with contemporaneous intent to steal is "without authority" for burglary by entering)
- People v. Glover, 276 Ill. App.3d 934 (1995) (burglary by remaining where defendant entered off-limits storage area to steal)
- People v. Vallero, 61 Ill. App.3d 413 (1978) (reversing burglary conviction where defendant lawfully entered and formed intent to steal only after entry)
- People v. Manning, 46 Ill. App.3d 877 (1977) (burglary by remaining requires hiding/remaining beyond authorized scope; contrasted with immediate shoplifting and departure)