Find Legal Information

"I have n[ever] entertained thoughts of planning to hurt any of you. I have never been out of the state either."

In his appellate brief, defendant acknowledges that, based on "plausible assumptions," the letter provides some proof that hemade the call while in Illinois. However, defendant argues that the letter does not satisfy the reasonable doubt standardbecause it does not exclude other explanations as to the meaning of the statement in the letter that he was never out of thestate.

Defendant's position is akin to the "reasonable hypothesis of innocence" requirement. Under the "reasonable hypothesis ofinnocence" requirement, where the evidence was entirely circumstantial courts applied a unique standard that would notallow a finding of guilt unless the proved facts or circumstances excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.However, in People v. Bryant, 113 Ill. 2d 497, 510-11 (1986), our supreme court decided that Illinois courts should nolonger use the "reasonable hypothesis of innocence" requirement. The court reasoned that the "reasonable hypothesis ofinnocence" requirement was an attempt to define the reasonable doubt standard and stated that the additional requirementwas unnecessary because its effect was obscure and misleading. Bryant, 113 Ill. 2d at 511-12. In a subsequent decision, thecourt stated that "the reasonable doubt test as set forth in People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261, should be applied inreviewing the sufficiency of evidence in all criminal cases, whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial." People v.Pintos, 133 Ill. 2d 286, 291 (1989). The court later reiterated that, regardless of the nature of the evidence, the reasonabledoubt test set forth in Collins should be applied. People v. Schott, 145 Ill. 2d 188, 203 (1991).

In these decisions, our supreme court has made it clear that there is a single standard of proof for proving the elements ofthe offense in a criminal case regardless of whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. The single standard is thebeyond a reasonable doubt standard as stated in Collins. It is also clear that, under the beyond a reasonable doubt standardas stated in Collins, there is no additional requirement of proof, such as that in the "reasonable hypothesis of innocence"requirement, when the evidence is circumstantial.

In this case, defendant takes the position that there is an additional requirement of proof beyond the reasonable doubtstandard as stated in Collins when circumstantial evidence is used to prove location. We are aware that a line of Illinoiscases has used language similar to that proposed by defendant in the context of determining whether the evidence wassufficient to prove location. See People v. Blanck, 263 Ill. App. 3d 224, 230 (1994), citing People v. Glass, 239 Ill. App. 3d916, 924 (1992), citing People v. Ramsey, 147 Ill. App. 3d 1084, 1089 (1986), citing People v. Toellen, 66 Ill. App. 3d 967,971 (1978), citing People v. Clark, 9 Ill. 2d 400, 406 (1956) (overruled on other grounds), citing Weinberg v. People, 208Ill. 15, 19 (1904). However, none of these cases offers an explanation as to why the additional requirement of proof isnecessary. In the absence of any explanation as to why an additional requirement beyond the reasonable doubt standard asstated in Collins would be necessary to determine location, and in view of the clear teaching from our supreme court thatthe single standard of proof in criminal cases is the standard stated in Collins without any additional requirements, we arenot persuaded by these cases that any additional requirement for proving location should be used even if the evidence iscircumstantial.

For these reasons, in this case, we will apply the reasonable doubt standard as stated in Collins without any additionalrequirements of proof. The Collins standard, as noted above, is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the offense. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at261. Under this standard, in order to prove location beyond a reasonable doubt, the law allows the fact finder to makereasonable inferences from established facts. People v. Hagan, 145 Ill. 2d 287, 300 (1991). Moreover, a reviewing courtmay not reverse a conviction based on an alleged failure to prove location unless the evidence, viewed in the light mostfavorable to the State, was so palpably contrary to the verdict, so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to create areasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. People v. Adams, 161 Ill. 2d 333, 343 (1994).

Here, a letter was introduced into evidence that defendant wrote to Patricia after his arrest. The trial judge, as the fact finderin this case, could have reasonably concluded that in the letter defendant was discussing the incidents that led to theintimidation charge that was brought against him. In that context, based on defendant's statement in the letter that he had notbeen out of the state, the trial court could have reasonably inferred that when defendant made the calls to Patricia in Ohio hehad not left the state, i.e., that when he made the calls, including the tape-recorded call, he was in Illinois. This wassufficient to prove the location element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and, therefore, that the trial court hadjurisdiction. Accordingly, the reversal of defendant's conviction on the ground that the trial court was without jurisdiction isnot warranted.

Defendant next contends that the cause must be remanded for resentencing because the statute that allowed a sentence of 10years for the offense of intimidation has been declared unconstitutional. In Public Act 88--680 (Pub. Act 88--680, eff. Jan.1, 1995) the legislature amended the intimidation statute to allow for a greater possible maximum sentence. Even thoughintimidation remained a Class 3 felony, the amended statute provided that an offender could "be sentenced to a term ofimprisonment of not less than 2 years and not more than 10 years." 720 ILCS 5/12--6(b) (West 1998). Prior to theamendment by Public Act 88--680, the intimidation statute simply provided that intimidation was a Class 3 felony. 720ILCS 5/12--6(b) (West 1992). Therefore, prior to the amendment, the sentencing range for intimidation was "not less than 2years and not more than 5 years." 730 ILCS 5/5--8--1(a)(6) (West 1998).

Our supreme court has decided that Public Act 88--680 was unconstitutional because it violated the single subject rule.People v. Cervantes, 189 Ill. 2d 80, 85 (1999). The effect of Cervantes was to leave the law in force as it was before PublicAct 88--680 was enacted. See People v. Gersch, 135 Ill. 2d 384, 390 (1990) (effect of unconstitutional amendment is toleave law in force as it was before adoption of amendment).

In this case, the trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 10 years' imprisonment as allowed by Public Act 88--680.However, because Public Act 88--680 was subsequently declared unconstitutional, the maximum possible sentence forintimidation that defendant could have been subjected to was the maximum possible sentence before the amendment, i.e.,five years. See 730 ILCS 5/5--8--1(a)(6) (West 1998). Defendant is therefore entitled to resentencing with a maximumpossible sentence of five years' imprisonment.

Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago County is affirmed in all respects except thesentence that the trial court imposed on defendant. Defendant's sentence is vacated, and the cause is remanded forresentencing in conformance with this disposition.

Conviction affirmed; sentence vacated; cause remanded.

INGLIS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.