*1 could not have notice of the additional procedures which would this court in that required by case. Since the record contains a as already to both Sa- finding hara’s charges, section 604 leav- ineligibility voluntarily ing cause, without we employment good consider that it was not the intent to legislative remandment for require hearings further in circumstances such regarding eligibility as those here.
Since the evidence fails establish that a labor dispute occurred at Sahara, we reverse the decision the appel- late court are plaintiffs ineligible unemploy- ment under section 604. compensation reversed, court
Appellate circuit court affirmed. (No. 57813.
THE THE ILLINOIS, PEOPLE OF STATE OF Appel-
lee, MICHAEL TERRELL, Appellant.
Opinion 1, 1984. February filed *2 JJ., GOLDENHERSH, CLARK, dissenting. SIMON, and Pe- Defender, and Pamela Deputy Robert Agostinelli, Ap- of the Office of State ters, Defender, Assistant Defender, pellate Ottawa for appellant. General,
Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney of Springfield (Michael Bindi, B. Weinstein and David Assistant Attor- General, of neys Chicago, of for the counsel), People.
JUSTICE MORAN delivered the of the court: opinion The defendant, Terrell, Michael was indicted by grand of Kankakee for the offenses of at jury County and unlawful use of a tempted robbery weapon. Charles Lott was charged, by indictment, same with possession marijuana. The cases were severed for trial and Terrell waived his right tried At the close of the State’s jury. chief, case in the defendant for a directed moved verdict. The motion was taken under advisement and later de nied. The record reveals that a order en written tered on December finding guilty *3 only for which he sen attempted robbery, was tenced to court, two years’ probation. appellate with one judge the dissenting, affirmed judgment.
App. 1086.) We allowed defendant’s petition leave Ill. 2d R. appeal (87 315(a)). The sole issue raised on is: appeal Whether the evi- dence is presented sufficient to establish the essential el- ements of the offense of
The evidence 7, 1980, revealed that on at August ap- a.m., proximately 6:15 an call anonymous telephone was received the Kankakee The caller by city police. stated men, two armed with were behind a guns, hiding service station. This was and was re- report dispatched car, Officer in one and sponded patrol Whitehead Rokus, area, Officers and who were the Pepin patrolling in another car. evidence,
A entered into shows that the ser- diagram, vice station is corner Er- located on southwest and streets. The first south of the zinger building Maple Street, is a construction
station, company. facing Maple To the rear of the build- is a tool company. Further south extends to an run- alley lot which ings grassy large buildings. to the ning parallel min- the scene within arrived
Officer Whitehead and seconds before Offi- utes of the radio dispatch into the alley cers pulled Rokus and Whitehead Pepin. im- station, where he lot onto behind empty man, weeds, in the 20 to crouched observed mediately of his got As the officer out 30 feet from the station. defendant, gun, car, carrying jumped who he saw fence, climbed weeds, ran towards from the up Street. Maple south down the other side and proceeded disposed testified that Officer Whitehead fence, although he scaled sometime before gun it seeing being dropped. he not remember could he ob- initially fifteen minutes after Twelve to hiding the defendant served, discovered Pepin Officer the tool company, approximately the weeds behind re- The defendant service station. feet from the A stock- on it. black nylon his shirt and was lying moved in his pocket. it found in the end of was with a knot ing to the going that he was claimed the defendant Although found no money the officer buy cigarettes, station to gas Whitehead, later, posi- Officer person. on defendant’s he as the man had ob- the defendant identified tively gun. with the served scene, approached and Pepin
As Rokus Officers wearing and a subject car Whitehead’s observed they over Lott, going as Charles identified shirt, later yellow later, minutes Lott, three fence. apprehended Rokus approximately company, rear of the construction in the *4 Rokus Pepin Both from the service station. feet 180 scaling had observed they Lott as the man identified one finding Lott’s pants, searched Pepin fence. Officer tied on with a knot stocking and a black of cannabis bag 431 his Offi- end. search for second During suspect, cer found a loaded revolver on the fully lying Pepin inches from the fence. It is from the ground, six unclear if at the the officers ar- record the station was time open notice, rived on the scene. Officer Whitehead did how- ever, that the station at some time his open during search of the area. that the evidence is
The defendant maintains State’s elements insufficient to establish the two essential of the of the Criminal Code 4(a) offense of Section attempt. 8— 1979, (Ill. 38, 1961 Rev. Stat. ch. par. 4(a)) pro 8— vides: when,
“A commits an with intent person attempt offense, any commit a he does act which consti- specific tutes a toward the commission of that of- substantial added.) fense.” (Emphasis of the (Ill.
Section Criminal Code of 1961 Rev. 2(a) 18— 1979, 38, Stat. ch. par. 2(a))provides: 18—
“A person robbery commits armed when he or she from the or property person presence of another [takes of force by threatening use or imminent use of while he or she on or his or her per- carries about force] son, dangerous or is otherwise armed with a weapon.” findWe that the facts and circumstances of this case are sufficient the defendant prove possessed requi- site intent to commit a and that he specific took a the commission of that toward follow, therefore, For the reasons to we af- firm the court. judgment appellate that,
It is established well to obtain a conviction for at the State must that the defendant intended tempt, prove to commit a (1983), offense. v. Stroner specific (People 211; Ill. 198, v. Trinkle 2d People (1977), 202; 568, 581.) v. Viser 62 Ill. 2d As the People Viser, court stated in is no criminal offense “[tjhere such as an result.” Ill. 2d to achieve an unintended attempt need not 581.) The intent to commit a criminal offense *5 from, but the of expressed, be inferred conduct the may (People and the circumstances. surrounding
defendant Mulcahey, where Thus, 72 Ill. 2d Mulcahey the was defendant convicted armed attempted robbery, the infer the intent to court was able to take requisite force, from a victim no demand money although specific for had been made. money defendant,
While the in the instant not case, does deny he intent, the of “some” criminal maintains that presence an the evidence fails to a to commit armed “imply design He a list of at the station.” alternative robbery suggests the and offenses which includes crime of targets burglary addition, signif- as to armed In he finds it opposed icant to that station gas that State failed establish he was when was discovered. initially open It unpersuasive. We find this is unreasonable argument to of fact to infer intent to expect a trier commit burglary, rather a suspect than armed when confronted with robbery who was seen a loaded revolver and carrying possession addition, of a tools. ladies’ but no In stocking burglary trial infer that the service station reasonably court could The defendant was ob was the defendant’s object plan. White station, by to the Officer served in close proximity was in head, the scene. This observation as he arrived on caller telephone with the initial from tip conformity hiding that were suspects who indicated be specifically necessary for the victim an hind the service station. As have in reasonably armed the trier of fact may robbery, ferred the attendant’s ar awaiting that Furthermore, in his taking plan. rival the final step before *** victim, not a requires armed although “[i]t [is] of misap to a because charge attempt defense impos it would been of the circumstances have prehension attempted.” to commit the offense sible for the accused is not 4(b).) ch. It de (Ill. par. Rev. Stat. 8— therefore, charge robbery, fense to take a substantial toward the commission of the victim, attendant, to find robbery only yet present. fact, case, to the presented evidence trier of this
revealed himself in the a defendant who concealed station, weeds in close a service which was proximity about to while in stocking of a mask open, possession revolver. In further of an fully loaded inference support intent, of criminal efforts elude the as defendant’s police *6 well as weak for his scene, his excuse presence could also considered. v. Harris properly (People (1972), 52 558, Ill. in 561.) facts, 2d Faced with these we find it credulous that defendant had intent other than the any of the station. robbery service
We turn next what has been as “one described of most troublesome in the of problems” area inchoate fenses: “when preparation commit an offense and ceases perpetration offense [attempt] begins.” (Ill. Ann. Stat., 38, ch. par. 4(a), Comments, Committee at 512 8— (Smith-Hurd 1972).) Answering this an requires question of the second analysis element of the statutory offense — act attempt “any which constitutes a substantial to ward the commission of 1979, that offense.” Rev. Stat. (Ill. 38, ch. it par. 4(a).) Although is not a that necessary 8— defendant complete the last in proximate act order to be convicted of our that attempt, cases have held mere prepa ration is not substantial v. step. Elmore (People (1971), 50 Ill. 10, 12; 2d People 154, v. Woods 24 Ill. (1962), 2d 158.) It an would be task impossible compile definitive list of which, acts if constitute a performed, substantial step toward commission crime. Such a deter every mination can be accomplished the facts by evaluating and circumstances of the (People case. v. Wallace particular 2d (1974), 285, 57 Ill. This is 292.) suggest, however, not to that of cases analysis which have defined “substantial step” cannot some provide guidance.
434 court,
In of the trial affirming appellate decision court, case, (1977), v. 50 People in this relied on Burleson on Ill. the facts in this case App. placing 3d 629. When and perpetration, compari continuum preparation between In son with in becomes useful. Burle the facts Burleson son, and accomplice approached the defendant his shotgun, bank while of a suitcase dis possession “.in 629, in Ill. which were 3d guises place.” App. bank, inside the who action a man bolted Only quick com the door as the perpetrators approached, prevented found the defendant of the offense. The court that pletion had taken toward Burleson defendant, case, instant of the bank. The his nor had he at the sta did have mask on arrived yet believe, It unreasonable to how tion’s front door. would be him ever, actions did not place the defendant’s ” “ v. Paluch People to success.’ ‘dangerous proximity 360, 2d v. United 356, quoting Hyde (1966), App. 78 388, 1114, 1134, L. 32 347, U.S. Ed. States J., dissenting). S. Ct. 810 (Holmes, decision, A People Reyes (1981), later court appellate further with the provides 102 Ill. comparison App. *7 The defendants in were Reyes facts of the instant case. in found attempted robbery. posses of armed While guilty enter, did a rifle, drug sion of a but not they approached, inside store. store. The intended victims were the Shortly scene, on the several patrons after the defendants’ arrival be and his codefendant walked of the drugstore. Reyes out time, the fired while, at the codefendant to same gan run his yard in a school a were nearby rifle. arrested They that the statement, plan In a said Reyes short time later. the as exited they drugstore. was to the victims rob not found of guilty he could maintained that Reyes he never entered armed because robbery the court noted In that argument, rejecting drugstore. contem not that, admission, his did plan own by Reyes’ Burleson, plate entry into on building. Relying court went on the victim of an intended say to when armed is within a into that build building, “entry robbery is a for ing required finding attempt *** for Burleson stands that a substantial principle has taken actor been when an the materials possesses crime, to out the at or near the carry con necessary place for templated its commission.” App.
Like defendant, the defendants in Burleson and Reyes, bar, in the case was the materials neces possession to an sary out near the carry was place its a for commission. He was armed with contemplated a revolver, loaded and the assistance of disguise an accom whose and identical plice, disguise indicated presence wait, He 25 to 30 feet prearranged plan. lying only from his with in hand. It was target, gun arrival which caused him to police plan. abandon his defining
When it becomes “attempt” decid- problematic when to allow to ing police intervene an unfolding course of criminal conduct. While must caution be exer- acts, cised avoid punishment inconclusive prevention of an (Wechsler, intended crime & necessary. Jones Korn, The Treatment Inchoate Crimes in the Model Pe- nal Code the American Attempt, Law Institute: Solicita- Conspiracy, tion & 61 Colum. L. (1961).) Rev. Burleson, The defendants in and the Reyes case at bar were in crimes involved which posed serious threat of great bodily harm to the victim. It should not be necessary victims to face subject face to confrontation with a le- thal in order to weapon make positive finding of es- sential element of substantial step.
The Model Penal Code has set forth a list of acts which may be considered to abe when step, strongly corroborative of actor’s criminal purpose. appellate court, case, in this found the defendant’s conduct be de- scribed several acts on the list. These were: *8 wait, following for the con-
“(a) lying searching or crime; of the templated victim (b.) * * * for
(c) reconnoitering place contemplated crime; commission of * * *
(d.) in the employed of materials (e) possession crime, for designed specially of the which are commission purpose can no lawful or which serve such unlawful use circumstances; of the actor under or fabrication of materials (f) possession, collection crime, or near commission of the at to be in the employed commission, its where such contemplated place pur- no lawful collection or fabrication serves possession, circumstances; actor under the pose of the 5.01(2) (Proposed Penal Code sec. (g) (Model ***.” 1963).) Official Draft list of acts included on this
A the categories comparison further gives with the actions specific of a substantial step. to a finding support which reversal. requires reflects no error The record this case is sufficient presented findWe the evidence doubt, intent a reasonable defendant’s establish, beyond within the service of an individual commit armed toward com- took a station and that he substantial The judgment appel- the armed robbery. mission of court is affirmed. late
Judgment affirmed. SIMON, dissenting: JUSTICE unambiguous require has two of attempt The crime offense,” and an “act ments— “intent to commit specific a the commission toward which constitutes Rev. Stat. added.) (Ill. (Emphasis of that offense.” intent I that either the do believe 4(a).) ch. par. 8— have been step requirement the substantial or requirement met in this case. most, a general here suggest, proved few facts
intent in the general some form mischief engage The uses area in which defendant was arrested. majority the intent to commit a specific same facts establish both and a in the commission of robbery, that in the These facts are defendant’s robbery. presence station, and of a gun the and his vicinity possession woman’s used as a face mask. stocking capable being Illinois
This far The goes result law. evi- beyond prior dence here falls short of an in- unambiguously establishing Further, tent to commit a offense. the specific majority, Code, while on the Model Penal its relying ignores require- ment that listed conduct considered a be substantial step if it toward the commission of a crime is “strongly (Model corroborative of the actor’s criminal Pe- purpose.” 5.01(2) nal Code sec. Official Draft 1962)). With (Proposed intent, no evidence of i.e. criminal independent purpose, the defendant’s conduct with a majority equating sub- stantial without corroboration.
People Mulcahey 72 Ill. 2d does not stand, as the for the that majority suggests, proposition intent to commit a ex criminal offense need be “[t]he pressed, may but be inferred from the conduct of the defendant the (99 and circumstances.” Ill. 2d surrounding at the 431-32.) On and rather and specific strange compli cated facts of this court held that of in Mulcahey, “proof tent to commit armed did not that he require make a demand of intended for the specific [the victim] which he had money instructed him to bring.” (Emphasis added.) Ill. 2d In that case, defendant held the wife aof bank in her home president hostage own and forced her to then phone her husband. The defendant instructed the $25,000 husband to ransom to a bring shop center. The ping husband informed the and was told police that there the delivery officers in might plainclothes center, area. he When husband reached the shopping home, left the briefcase and returned containing money his was free and unharmed. He where he learned that wife briefcase, to retrieve the returned to center shopping Thinking and saw a man in his wife’s automobile. car, officer, man was a he plainclothes approached door, man that his wife was all and told the opened However, pointed the man who right. kidnaper said, husband and “Get in the car or gun you’re dead The fled. man.” husband Mulcahey was convicted of aggra- Unlike the vated kidnaping here, there had demanded money situation the defendant from earlier that in their conversa- day phone the husband *10 Mulcahey not where tion. The court did infer demand none; the entire chain of there was the court relied on demand telephone money events with the beginning to the use of the obtain gun and with ending attempted his Defendant’s control over husband and money. prior to control over demand indicated his obtain plan his of the criminal $25,000, and conduct was corroborative contrast, In intent threat. evidenced by one with a weapon; defendant in this case no approached car, to into get he over money, made no demands turn corroborating or to else. There was no evi- do anything far As as record dence of a planned calls, no and shows, gave signs, made no defendant phone testified that told no one of No individual any plans. station. Defendant to rob the had any plan statements no oral or written not and made pleaded guilty such indicating plan. com most, preparation
At all the State has proved one offense, involving perhaps mit some as yet unspecified located in the immediate vicin of several other businesses it the defendant com necessary is not that Although ity. of at in order to be convicted last act proximate plete Illinois, requires the statute nonetheless tempt the offense. Mere substantial toward commission
439 preparation is not a substantial v. Wallace step. (People (1974), 285; 57 Ill. 2d v. People (1971), Elmore 50 Ill. 2d 10; v. People 154, Woods 24 Ill. 2d (1962), cert. denied 819, (1962), 59, U.S. 9 L. Ed. 2d 83 S. Ct.
acts of defendants in those cases came much closer to criminal conduct than here, defendant’s behavior suspicious as it In was. v. Wallace 57 Ill. 2d People (1974), 285, the defendants offered to the money officers who seized police from them; money were convicted they In bribery. 10, v. Elmore Ill. 2d People (1971), 50 defendants, who were convicted of theft by deception, stereo, listed a which had sold and they previously deliv ered, on an insurance form, claim that falsely indicating the stereo had been fire. destroyed Once submitted they form, the claim defendants could have intended that only they reimbursed for an item which knew they been In destroyed. People Woods Ill. 2d the defendant was convicted of after he attempted abortion and accepted fee, counted his explained operation the patient, and her a gave sedative.
It is from clear these cases there is no catalogue of acts which constitute a invariably to ward the commission of crime. The every line between and preparation is difficult to attempt can specify be drawn by evaluating the facts of each case (Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. par. 4(a), Comments, Committee at 512 8— *11 (Smith-Hurd 1972)). The significance of various acts be comes in apparent light defendant’s crimi nal intent.
In People v. Eveland Ill. 2d this court reversed a for conviction to attempting justice obstruct be cause the State failed to intent. After prove requisite arrested in police two men connection with a recent obtained a to robbery, they warrant search the trailer one of where the men lived. Although police found defendant and another individual carrying clothing car,
from to a there was no evi- the trailer nearby parked intended to re- dence that the defendant was or removing case is move evidence from trailer. This incriminating and behavior near similar. While the defendant’s presence station do not suspicion, provide service arouse they to crime. clear of an intent commit Un- specific evidence of law, der a defendant cannot be convicted at- Illinois of alone. on the basis behavior tempt suspicious were activi The defendant’s actions here preliminary It ties, consistent with a number of different outcomes. does to me “incredulous that defendant had not appear than the armed service sta any robbery intent other no in the re tion.” There was evidence (99 in the station during cord that there was service anyone is in the weeds. There also hiding the time defendant was time either of the no as to the customary opening evidence no of the other There is indi station, nearby or businesses. of the other any cation was in present whether anyone establishments, walking or whether anyone business street, in lot. Poten empty on the in the or alleyway, have located any tial victims could been armed-robbery find “unreasonable to Further, I do not it those places. commit trier fact to infer intent to expect burglary, confronted with rather than armed when [this] are commit 432.) Many burglaries Ill. 2d at suspect.” through enter tools; open defendants ted without special to lots break win or throw rocks found empty windows Too, of burglars two dows, many examples. to but give in the their identities event ten wear masks hide also carried by Guns are inadvertently are discovered. they other encounter people. in case burglars they unexpectedly in- to allow defining attempt police The problem of criminal conduct before in an course unfolding tervene time done, while at the same is actually the intended harm or acts may may which equivocal avoiding punishment Jones & harm. (Wechsler, lead criminal eventually *12 441 Korn, The Treatment Inchoate Crimes in Model the Pe- of nal Code the American Law Institute: Solicita- Attempt, of tion, and 571, 61 L. 572 Conspiracy, Colum. Rev. (1961).) It is line always difficult draw this so as to bal- properly ance the needs of the the conflicting police public large of against rights the the individual citizen. Our legis- lature the has drawn line at the where the point has taken a substantial toward commission of the crime. This court cannot interfere with de- legislature’s cision that and with moving balance line further in by the direction mere of and undefined intent. preparation
Reliance the appellate court and by majority this People court on v. Burleson (1977), 50 3d App. 629, is court held that the defend misplaced. appellate ant in Burleson taken a substantial toward the of a bank. Burleson was outside the just bank with a and a suitcase all disguise, shotgun, place. As the points out, majority “[o]nly quick action of bank, man inside the who perpetra bolted door as the tors approached, prevented completion the offense.” added.) (Emphasis Ill. 2d at That is far different from the was, situation here where defendant according to 30 feet from majority opinion, approximately one away of several never to possible targets, moving was observed or ward the any target, weapon, station other drew no ap one, and kind on proached any no made no demands of is no that victim anyone (for there evidence any potential capable and carried a present), stocking woman’s mask in being tight used as a so pants pocket officer had it when he police difficulty removing searched This defendant. is hardly “dangerous proximity” It is ironic that the completion offense. majority relies on Justice Holmes’ famous as Peo phrase, quoted 360, 356, v. 78 Ill. ple (1966), App. quoting Paluch Hyde 347, 388, 225 U.S. 56 L. Ed. (1912), United States 1114, 1134, (Holmes, J., Ct. In dissenting). 32 S. 810 347, 387, 225 U.S. Hyde
both v. United States 1114, 1134, v. Paluch Ed. 32 S. Ct. 810 and People L. *13 359-60, the full in 356, passage 78 Ill. 2d (1966), App. “*** overt act all statement, may intention and cludes to a criminal In amounting be without present attempt.” to success. addition, dangerous there must be proximity I find or can Here, unable to intention overt act. How am term, in Holmes’ there be Justice proximity, dangerous initial hurdles have not even been sur when those two Holmes To understand Justice meant by mounted? what I to often referring his “dangerous suggest proximity” between prepa the distinction quoted example illustrating The of a of matches is attempt. purchase ration and box to a attempting too remote to a bum sustain conviction a in to the Lighting haystack match haystack. proximity Holmes, to charge. (O. would be sustain the W. enough No of the defendant here Common Law 67-69 act (1881).) to the match. At lighting could as regarded equivalent be some distance being are to analogous most his actions in with the matches his pocket. from away haystack v. People case on the majority, The second relied an even more 102 Ill. 3d (1981), App. presents Reyes to defendants waited contrast this case. Several striking rifle, were inside. with while drugstore patrons outside defendants store, left the two When the intended victims ad run, Reyes one fired the rifle. Defendant ,and to began as left the they rob the victims mitted that the was to plan the sta of a to rob plan evidence drugstore. Corroborating Even if the in this case. missing what is tion precisely 102 Ill. 3d App. People Reyes majority cor 435) case are (99 in this 835 and the majority that stands for principle that “Burleson stating rect actor possesses taken when an has been crime, at near or out carry the materials necessary commission,” there must be for its contemplated the place contem- is, and of the place the crime of what evidence There is in the record nothing for its commission. plated here indicates that defendant rob this planned which time. The station at this particular particular majority’s of an with an suggestion presence accomplice identical 111.2d at indicates a disguise prearranged plan does not resolve the since these 435) go question, intent. nor the general accomplice disguises Neither are evidence of intent to commit the unambiguous specific offense of armed of someone within station. above, As I have both are consistent with a vari- explained no of other Since there is corrobo- ety goals. independent evidence to rob someone within the sta- rating plan tion, it is to isolate a intent. specific impossible mentions a number of
Although acts which majority 5.01 resemble those listed section Model Penal *** Code as “not insufficient as a matter law” to re *14 garded as a substantial Penal Code sec. step (Model 5.01(2) includes, Draft it ignores, Official (Proposed 1962)), yet “if of the language corroborative ac introductory strongly tor’s criminal fails to mention the Also it purpose.” preced sentence ing which states “Conduct shall not pointedly: held to constitute substantial under Subsection step (lXc) of this Section unless it is corroborative the ac strongly of tor’s criminal Penal purpose.” (Emphasis added.) (Model Code Draft 5.01(2) 1962).) (See sec. Official 99 (Proposed 436-37.) Ill. 2d at This is consistent with the understanding of the Model Penal Code. require reporter “[T]he result in the imposition ment of a substantial will step in those instances which some attempt liability of criminal ***.” purpose Wechsler, firmness shown Korn, Jones & The Treatment Inchoate Crimes in the Model Penal Code the American Law Institute: At Solicitation, and 61 L. tempt, Conspiracy, Colum. Rev. 571, 593 (1961).
The mandated the statute two requires analysis the unambig There must first be criminal steps. culpability, 444
nous of the intent to commit a act. expression particular after has can the court deter Only intent been established mine whether the defendant’s acts constitute substantial toward commission of the crime. Fed identified eral courts have reached a similar conclusion construing United v. Jackson States (2d Penal Model Code. Cf. cert. denied (1977), 112, 941, 434 U.S. 1977), Cir. 560 F.2d 301, 431, 1017, L. Ed. 2d 98 S. 434 U.S. (1978), 54 Ct. United States v. 736; 762, 54 L. Ed. 2d 98 S. Ct. States Stallworth United F.2d (2d 1038; Cir. 543 1976), cert. denied Mandujano (5th Cir. 370, 1974), F.2d Ed. 2d S. Ct. 792. 419 U.S. 42 L. beyond Since the acts do not establish defendant’s reasonable doubt his intent commit armed an station, no other individual within the service and since evi- of either or toward commis- dence intent con- sion I do not believe that defendant’s presented, can support duct conviction I above, For dissent and the reasons explained reverse the conviction. would CLARK, this JJ., dissent. join
GOLDENHERSH and 58056, 58062, (Nos. 58085 cons. M. CROCKER, v. MORGAN Appellee, MARIE
JANICE *15 al., Appellants. FINLEY et 1, 1984. February Opinion filed