Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; May 11, 1989; Illinois; State Appellate Court
Defendant was convicted of criminal trespass to land under section 21.3(a) of the Criminal Code of 1961 and sentenced to 30 days in the Champaign County Correctional Center. The conviction stemmed from an incident at Elmer’s Bar on February 29, 1988, involving a confrontation after a physical altercation. Following a warning from the bartender, David Lariviere, for all parties involved to leave, police were called. Officers Lynn Callaghan and Allen Johnston arrived and reiterated the bartender's request that defendant and his companion, Sowers, leave the premises entirely, including the parking lot. Despite multiple warnings from the police about potential arrest for trespassing, defendant attempted to return to the bar after expressing a desire for a cab. A struggle ensued between defendant and Officer Johnston, leading to additional charges of aggravated battery and battery. On appeal, defendant contended that he had not received proper notice to leave, which is a critical element for establishing criminal trespass. The court affirmed the conviction, noting that sufficient notice had been provided by both the bartender and the police officers.
Notice is defined as personal notification, either orally or in writing, from the property owner or occupant. The State's indictment claimed that the defendant received notice from Lariviere, a bartender at Elmer’s Bar, to leave the premises. The defendant argued that Lariviere's statements to others in the bar were too vague to constitute personal notice. However, the court disagreed. The defendant also contended that the police officers' statements could not serve as notice since the indictment did not detail their involvement. The court found sufficient evidence that Lariviere informed the officers to ask the defendant and his companion to leave, and the officers testified that they repeatedly instructed them to do so. The court noted that in situations involving intoxicated patrons, it is advisable to have police handle removals instead of attempting personal intervention. Although the indictment did not specify the officers' involvement, this omission did not surprise or prejudice the defendant, who was aware of the officers' testimony as he had to defend against other charges related to the incident. The court emphasized that discrepancies between allegations and evidence must be material to mislead the accused or expose them to double jeopardy to warrant a trial's invalidation. The defendant further claimed he intended to leave, but the evidence indicated he was informed multiple times to depart and did not leave the premises, ultimately being arrested when he attempted to return to the bar. The jury could reasonably conclude that he intended to stay on the property after being given notice. Consequently, the circuit court's order was affirmed.
