People v. Murphy
2017 IL App (1st) 142092
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Darnell Murphy was tried in a bench trial and convicted of burglary for being inside a University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) telecommunications building that was restricted to employees using a key or key card.
- Surveillance video showed Murphy on a Sunday morning testing doorknobs, looking through boxes, moving boxes, and looking into parked cars; two UIC employees testified he was not a UIC employee.
- A UIC employee watched the video, asked a coworker to call UIC police, and confronted Murphy, who said he was "just looking for something."
- A UIC officer arrested Murphy and recovered a box of cable wire near where Murphy had been seen moving boxes.
- The trial court concluded the video established unauthorized entry and intent to commit theft and sentenced Murphy to an eight-year Class X term; the appellate majority affirmed but vacated a $25 VCVA assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Murphy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — unauthorized entry | Building access limited to employees by key/key card; Murphy was non-employee inside on Sunday | State did not prove he lacked authority because no owner/manager testified and no direct proof how he entered | Affirmed — sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer unauthorized entry |
| Sufficiency — intent to commit theft | Video showed testing doorknobs, moving boxes, presence in restricted area on Sunday supports inference of intent to steal | His conduct (no stolen property, no tools, did not flee, said he was "just looking") is consistent with innocent purpose | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence sufficient to infer intent |
| Fines/fees — VCVA $25 assessment | Statute imposes $25 only when no other fine imposed | Assessment improper because other fines were imposed | Vacated $25 VCVA assessment; fines/fees order corrected |
| Ex post facto challenge to $2 automation fees | Fees enacted after offense; challenge contends retroactive imposition violates ex post facto clause | Fees are compensatory (not punitive) and thus not subject to ex post facto prohibition | Held fees are nonpunitive (fees) — ex post facto inapplicable; fees remain imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Brown, 2013 IL 114196 (sets standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to the State)
- People v. Bradford, 2016 IL 118674 (deference to factfinder on credibility and weight of evidence)
- People v. Johnson, 28 Ill. 2d 441 (1963) (intent may be proven circumstantially)
- People v. Poe, 385 Ill. App. 3d 763 (burglary occurs upon unauthorized entry with requisite intent)
- People v. Madej, 106 Ill. 2d 201 (State must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt)
- People v. Laubscher, 183 Ill. 2d 330 (State may not leave essential element to conjecture or assumption)
- People v. Smith, 2014 IL App (1st) 123094 (conviction cannot rest on conjecture linking possession or conduct to theft)