People v. Murphy
2017 IL App (1st) 142092
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On April 15, 2012, Darnell Murphy was observed on UIC building video inside a restricted-access telecommunications building (1140 S. Paulina) that is accessible only by university employees via key or key card.
- Video showed Murphy testing doorknobs, looking in boxes, moving boxes, and looking into parked car windows; he was in the building on a Sunday when only three employees were present.
- A UIC employee saw Murphy on a monitor, called UIC police, and confronted Murphy in the basement; Murphy said he was "just looking for something."
- UIC officer arrested Murphy and recovered a box of cable wire near where Murphy had been seen moving boxes.
- After a bench trial Murphy was convicted of burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-1(a)) and sentenced to an eight-year Class X term; he appealed challenging sufficiency of evidence and certain fines/fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — unauthorized entry | Video and employee testimony show building is restricted to employees and Murphy was not an employee; presence supports unauthorized entry inference | State failed to prove lack of authority; no owner/manager testified and no evidence how he entered | Affirmed — rational factfinder could infer unauthorized entry from restricted access and Murphy’s presence |
| Sufficiency — intent to commit theft | Murphy’s conduct (testing knobs, moving boxes, looking in equipment) on a Sunday supports inference of intent to steal | Conduct consistent with innocuous explanation (“just looking”); no theft completed, no tools, no flight — insufficient to prove intent | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence was sufficient to infer intent beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Assessment of $25 VCVA fee | State imposed VCVA assessment along with other fines | Murphy argued VCVA improper when other fines imposed | Vacated $25 VCVA assessment; fines/fees order corrected |
| Ex post facto challenge to $2 automated-records fees | Fees enacted after offense; argued ex post facto application | Court and State treat charges as compensatory fees (not punitive) so ex post facto not implicated | Fees upheld as non-punitive; ex post facto argument rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Brown, 2013 IL 114196 (establishes standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- People v. Bradford, 2016 IL 118674 (deference to factfinder on credibility and weight of evidence)
- People v. Poe, 385 Ill. App. 3d 763 (burglary completed upon unauthorized entry with requisite intent)
- People v. Johnson, 28 Ill. 2d 441 (intent may be proven circumstantially)
- People v. Madej, 106 Ill. 2d 201 (State must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt but not beyond all possibility)
- People v. Laubscher, 183 Ill. 2d 330 (State may not leave an essential element to conjecture)