delivered the opinion of the court:
Miсhael Falgares, defendant, was charged with attempted theft. After a benсh trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to the Cook County jail for 6 months. In this appеal the sole issue presented for review is whether the defendant’s actions constituted a substantial step toward the commission of theft.
On December 3, 1973, thе defendant was shopping in the men’s department on the first floor of Carson, Pirie, Scott and Company (hereinafter Carsons). Thomas Traficanta, a store detective employed by Car-sons, was stationed in the men’s shop, department 17, at 12:45 P.M., when he observed the defendant. Traficanta testified that he saw thе defendant pick up a man’s shirt and place it in a brown bag. Then the defendаnt proceeded to another section of department 17 where he selected a package of underwear- that was placed in the same bag. The defendant passed a checkout counter without pаying for the merchandise and walked to the next department, a distance of approximately 60 feet. At this point, the store detective stoppеd Falgares, identified himself, and examined the defendant’s bag. The search revealed a package of underwear and a man’s shirt, but no receipt fоr the merchandise. Consequently, the defendant was asked to accomрany the detective to the security office.
While waiting for the police, the detective testified, the defendant said he didn’t mean to do it and would like tо pay for the merchandise. The defendant testified that he was in Carsons while intoxicated; that he picked up a shirt and placed it in his bag; and, finally, he offered to pay for the items.
The defendant contends that his acts do not constitute a substantial step toward the commission of theft. We disagree with defendant’s contention. The Criminal Code defines an attempt in section 8 — 4(a) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 8 — 4(a)), as follows:
“A person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a specific offense, he does any act which constitutes a substantial stеp toward the commission of that offense.”
The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Elmore (1971).
"The mere preparation to do somеthing, absent an act constituting a substantial step toward the commission of a specific offense, does not establish the perpetration of the оffense. In order to establish the offense of attempt under section 8 — 4(a) of the Criminal Code, there must be an intent to commit a specific offense аnd an act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that оffense. See People v. Woods,24 Ill.2d 154 , 158,180 N.E.2d 475 .”
• In the instant case the defendant’s acts of placing tire shirt and the package of underwear in his bag is circumstantial evidence of his intent to commit a theft. The substantial step was taken when thе defendant placed the merchandise in his bag, and passed a checkout counter into another department. Although these acts may not have been the final acts required to complete the substantive offense оf theft, they constitute more than mere preparation and reach far enough toward the accomplishment of the desired result.
The rules of law applicable to an assessment of the sufficiency of the evidencе by a reviewing court are well settled. When a case is heard by the trial court without a jury, the determination of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be аccorded their testimony are for the judge to decide and, unless the evidеnce is clearly insufficient, a reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier оf fact. (People v. Smith (1963),
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.
Affirmed.
DIERINGER, P. J„ and ADESKO, J., concur.