People v. Lindsey, 55 N.E.3d 792

Defendant Leonard Lindsey was indicted for theft (candles/candle fluid under $500) and burglary; trial proceeded on one theft count alleging the theft was committed in St. Pius V Catholic Church (a place of worship).
Surveillance video from the parish office/vestibule showed Lindsey taking a boxed delivery of candle fluid from the parish office building; he had no permission to take it.
The jury was instructed on theft generally but was not asked to decide whether the theft occurred in a "place of worship." The jury returned a general guilty verdict for theft and acquitted on burglary.
At sentencing the trial judge found, as a matter of law, that the theft occurred in a place of worship and treated the offense as a Class 4 felony (rather than a Class A misdemeanor), then imposed an extended five-year sentence based on a prior conviction.
On appeal Lindsey argued (1) the "place of worship" enhancement was not submitted to the jury as required by Apprendi and (2) the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the theft occurred in a place of worship.
The appellate court held the judge’s finding of the enhancement was an Apprendi error and, because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the theft occurred in a place of worship, the error was not harmless; the conviction was reduced to a Class A misdemeanor and sentence reduced to maximum misdemeanor custody of 364 days (already served).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failing to submit the "place of worship" sentencing factor to the jury violated Apprendi	The State argued the enhancement was implicit in convicting Lindsey for theft of Archdiocese property	Lindsey argued the enhancement (place of worship) was not submitted to or found by the jury, violating Apprendi	Court: Failure to submit the factor was error under Apprendi; judicial finding usurped jury role
Whether the Apprendi error was harmless (i.e., whether State proved beyond a reasonable doubt the theft occurred in a place of worship)	The State argued the evidence (campus, ownership, video) was sufficient to show theft occurred on church grounds and thus harmless error	Lindsey argued the office building was distinct from the church proper and the issue was contested; State failed to prove the statutory "place of worship" element beyond a reasonable doubt	Court: Error not harmless because the contested facts and statutory definition were not overwhelmingly established; reduced conviction to Class A misdemeanor

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact that increases prescribed penalty beyond statutory range must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
People v. Thurow, 203 Ill. 2d 352 (2003) (Apprendi errors are subject to harmless-error review; State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that result would be the same)
People v. Nitz, 219 Ill. 2d 400 (2006) (applies Thurow harmless-error framework for Apprendi violations)
People v. Jones, 219 Ill. 2d 1 (2006) (example where enhancement fact was uncontested and overwhelming, supporting harmlessness)