People v. Moore
107 N.E.3d 402
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- On Aug. 7, 2015, two men (Adrian and Jamison L. Moore) were dropped off at a Belvidere Walmart; Adrian carried a diaper bag and entered the liquor department.
- Surveillance showed Adrian remove four bottles of vodka and leave the store without paying while Jamison walked around the front of the store and briefly remained on the sales floor.
- Employees followed Adrian to the parking lot as he left in an SUV that fled; Jamison later left the store, ran, and was apprehended nearby; he gave inconsistent statements to police.
- Jamison was charged with burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-1(a)) and retail theft (720 ILCS 5/16-25(a)(1)); the jury convicted him of both.
- Trial court sentenced Jamison to concurrent terms: 10 years for burglary and a 6-year extended term for retail theft.
- On appeal Jamison argued (1) entry was with authority because store was open and he stayed in public areas, (2) State failed to prove intent or accountability for Adrian’s theft, and (3) the extended-term retail-theft sentence was unauthorized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entering a retail store during business hours with intent to steal satisfies burglary’s “without authority” element | State: longstanding precedent holds entry with intent to steal negates authority to enter | Moore: lawful entry during business hours and remaining in public areas means he had authority, so no burglary | Court: Affirmed burglary-by-entry doctrine (Weaver line); intent at entry removes authority; Bradford (on remaining) does not overrule Weaver |
| Whether evidence showed Moore intended to commit theft at entry | State: facts (entry together, eye contact, Moore’s position, no shopping behavior, flight, inconsistent statements) support intent | Moore: no proof of pre-entry intent | Held: evidence sufficient for jury to infer prearranged plan and intent to steal |
| Whether Moore was accountable for Adrian’s theft (retail-theft conviction) | State: Moore aided/served as lookout; satisfied accountability elements | Moore: he did not personally steal and was not shown to have aided or shared intent | Held: evidence supported accountability (concerted plan/lookout, shared intent) |
| Whether retail-theft extended term was authorized | State: originally imposed extended term | Moore: extended term unauthorized because burglary is the more serious offense | Held: State conceded error; appellate court reduced retail-theft sentence to the non-extended statutory maximum |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kelley, 274 Ill. 556 (recognizing that entry with intent to steal can constitute burglary)
- People v. Weaver, 41 Ill. 2d 434 (authority to enter a public business is limited to purposes consistent with the business; intent to steal removes authority)
- People v. Bradford, 2016 IL 118674 (burglary-by-remaining limited to exceeding physical authority; does not convert ordinary shoplifting into burglary-by-remaining)
- People v. Miller, 238 Ill. 2d 161 (burglary and retail theft can be distinct offenses)
- People v. Jordan, 103 Ill. 2d 192 (principle on limits of extended-term sentencing)