Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
People v. Ortiz
Citations: 524 N.E.2d 1050; 170 Ill. App. 3d 1083; 121 Ill. Dec. 2; 1988 Ill. App. LEXIS 709Docket: 86-2718
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; May 18, 1988; Illinois; State Appellate Court
Angel Ortiz was convicted of theft and sentenced to four years in prison following a bench trial. He appeals, arguing that the State did not prove the elements of the offense and that the trial court used an improper standard for his conviction. The charges stemmed from a burglary at Peggy Grafft's apartment in Chicago, where Arthur Carlson, a neighbor, witnessed suspicious activity. On May 13, 1986, Carlson heard repeated knocking at various doors before noticing an unfamiliar blue Chevy Nova parked outside. He observed an individual loading stereo equipment and a VCR into the car. Carlson reported the burglary to the police, providing details about the vehicle and its license plate. Police Officer Mesikapp later spotted the car based on this information and arrested Ortiz and driver Guillermo Toro, finding stolen items in the backseat. Ortiz, with prior burglary convictions, testified that he had asked Toro for a ride and claimed he was unaware of any theft. The court ultimately affirmed the conviction. Defendant remained in a car while Toro made multiple trips to a building, returning with video and stereo equipment, which he placed in the passenger side. Defendant claimed he never left the car and only leaned out to assist Toro with a television set. The court acquitted him of burglary due to a lack of evidence that he entered Grafft's apartment but convicted him of theft. The court defined theft as knowingly obtaining or controlling property with intent to deprive the owner, referencing Illinois law. It favored the testimonies of Officer Mesikapp and Arthur Carlson over defendant's, concluding that he assisted Toro in loading the items, despite his claims of mere presence. Carlson testified he saw two people loading the car, and the trial court found it reasonable to assume defendant helped, even if he believed Toro was retrieving stored items. The court clarified that the acquittal of burglary did not impact the theft conviction, as the State needed only to demonstrate unauthorized control over the property, not that the defendant physically took items from Grafft's apartment. Intent in criminal acts can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the event. In this case, the defendant's unauthorized control and intent to deprive were supported by testimony indicating he was present when two individuals loaded stolen property into a car. Despite the defendant's explanation for his presence, the trial court found it unconvincing. A defendant must provide a plausible story when explaining possession of stolen property; otherwise, the explanation may be deemed improbable. Evidence showed that the defendant and an accomplice drove to multiple locations, and the hurried removal of various stolen items further indicated the defendant's knowledge that the property was not his. Although the trial court mistakenly cited an irrelevant case in its judgment, the correctness of the conviction was based on sufficient evidence of unauthorized control and intent, not the rationale provided. Consequently, the conviction under section 16-1(a) was upheld, and the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed.