People v. Smith
2014 IL App (1st) 123094
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Defendant Terrence Smith was convicted after a bench trial for burglary of an auto parts store and sentenced to six years (Class X) based on criminal history.
- Witness Cannon saw Smith enter an opening in a chain‑link fence behind the closed/unused store, lost sight of him for about 10 minutes, then saw him toss "pipes and auto parts" over the fence and place them in a city garbage can.
- Police stopped Smith pushing a garbage can containing various car parts (mufflers, pipes, bolts) and arrested him; Smith admitted possessing items he knew were stolen but denied entering the building.
- Store owner Greene inspected the closed premises about a week earlier, had observed a hole in the fence, and on June 20 found items missing (struts, brake pads, springs) but did not take an inventory or identify items recovered from Smith as his.
- Officers observed some damage (kicked garage door, broken window) but could not verify recency; no witness actually saw Smith inside the building or tied the recovered parts to specific items missing from the store.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved entry into the building with intent to steal | Smith was seen entering the fenced area behind the store and later had stolen property | Smith only entered the lot/fenced area, not the building; no one saw him inside | Reversed — State failed to prove entry into the building beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether possession of items supported burglary conviction | Possession of recently stolen auto parts near the scene supports inference of burglary | Possession alone, without linkage to store inventory or exclusive unexplained possession, is insufficient | Possession alone (without corroboration or linkage) insufficient to sustain burglary conviction |
| Whether recovered property was connected to the store's missing items | Recovered car parts were same type as items reported missing | Owner did not inventory, did not identify recovered items as his property | No evidence connected items in defendant's possession to those missing from the store |
| Whether there was corroborating evidence of intent to steal inside the building | Damage to premises and defendant’s presence in proximity corroborate intent | Damage recency uncertain; no witness saw forced entry or defendant inside | No corroborating evidence of entry or intent; reasonable doubt exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Housby v. People, 84 Ill. 2d 415 (possession‑inference test for recently stolen property and burglary)
- People v. Natal, 368 Ill. App. 3d 262 (possession near scene insufficient alone; need more than proximity and possession)
- People v. McGee, 373 Ill. App. 3d 824 (circumstantial proof of burglary allowed but must establish elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- People v. Laubscher, 183 Ill. 2d 330 (State may not rely on conjecture; must produce evidence supporting reasonable inference)
- People v. Parham, 377 Ill. App. 3d 721 (reversed burglary conviction where possession of property wasn’t linked to victim or observed taking)