People v. Haissig
976 N.E.2d 1121
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendants Sandra Haissig and Edward Golden were Abbott Laboratories employees who formed Elevator Components, Inc. and received about $300,000 from Abbott for elevator work without disclosing their interest.
- Abbott had a policy requiring disclosure of personal interests in firms doing business with Abbott; defendants fabricated a contact name for Elevator Components.
- Defendants were charged with five counts of theft (I–V) involving deceptive practices and improper handling of Abbott’s funds; Counts I and III alleged theft by deception, with Count IV alleging another deception theory.
- The trial court convicted on Counts I and III, acquitted Counts II, IV, and V, and held that theft by deception could occur even without pecuniary loss to the victim; the sentencing transcript was not in the record.
- On appeal, defendants argued appellate counsel’s failure to include the trial transcript prevented challenging the sufficiency of evidence; the appellate record lacked the relevant transcript; the Post-Conviction Petition was filed alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; the circuit court denied relief, which this court affirmed, concluding no prejudice from the omission.
- The case progressed through multiple post-conviction stages and supervisory orders, culminating in a de novo review that upheld the trial court’s interpretation of theft under 16-1 and affirmed the denial of the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pecuniary loss is required for theft under 16-1(A) | Haissig argues no pecuniary loss is needed for (A). | Haissig contends lack of loss defeats theft by deception. | No, loss not required under subsection (A) as interpreted by the court. |
| Whether appellate counsel’s omission prejudiced the defense | People contend no prejudice since issue is legal. | Haissig asserts missing transcript prevented showing error. | petitions denied; no reasonable probability of successful appeal based on missing transcript. |
| What is the proper interpretation of use/benefit in 16-1(A) | People rely on broad interpretation of use/benefit tied to defendant’s intent to deprive. | Defendants argue intent measured by value received by Abbott; no pecuniary loss implies no theft. | Use/benefit is tied to the defendant’s actions toward Abbott’s property; intent to permanently deprive applies to funds regardless of value received. |
| Does 16-1(A) require proof of deprivation via defendant’s action toward owner’s property (B/C) or broader | Statutory structure supports all three subsections. | Only proof of taking and intent to deprive suffices. | Subsection (A) requires intent to deprive permanently; may be proven without use/abandonment/concealment, but not limited to those actions. |
| Is restitution relevant to proving intent under 16-1(A) | Restitution evidence mirrors intent to deprive. | Restitution could negate intent. | Restitution cannot negate theft, but may inform absence of intent to permanently deprive. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kotlarz, 193 Ill. 2d 272 (2000) (outlines elements of theft by deception)
- People v. Havener, 13 Ill. App. 3d 312 (1973) (theft complete upon unauthorized control; different elements from other charges)
- People v. Lardner, 300 Ill. 264 (1921) (larceny precursor; taking property completes offense)
- People v. Riggins, 13 Ill. 2d 134 (1958) (restitution and intent considerations in embezzlement-like contexts)
- People v. Barrett, 405 Ill. 188 (1950) (restitution evidence relevant to absence of felonious intent)
- People v. Kelly, 344 Ill. App. 3d 1058 (2003) (pecuniary loss in theft by deception; value of property exchanged considered)
- Haynes v. State, 132 Ill. App. 2d 1031 (1971) (definition of intent elements under theft statute)
- State v. Stephens, 953 P.2d 1373 (1998) (theft by deception completed at moment of taking; degree based on property value)