People v. Perry
309 Ill. Dec. 330, 864 N.E.2d 196, 224 Ill. 2d 312 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The occupancy of a hotel room is 'property' under the Illinois theft statute because it is a 'thing of value.' A defendant who obtains the use of a hotel room by deception with the intent to not pay permanently deprives the owner of the beneficial use of that property for the duration of the unpaid stay.
Facts:
- Michael L. Perry, along with his wife and children, occupied a suite at the Embassy Suites hotel in Lombard, Illinois, from January through April 2000.
- Perry negotiated a reduced rate and requested that the hotel bill a company he claimed to be president of, Prolific Development Corporation (Prolific).
- He provided the hotel with several trade references and a credit card in another person's name, Bryan Green.
- After four bills totaling over $12,000 went unpaid, the hotel discovered the address for Prolific was unknown, the company's contact person was not associated with it, and the trade references were negative.
- Perry offered various excuses for the non-payment, including issues with the post office and his accountant.
- On May 13, 2000, Perry and his family vacated the hotel during the night without checking out or settling the final bill, which exceeded $15,000.
- An attempt by the hotel to charge the credit card Perry had provided was unsuccessful because the cardholder disputed the charges.
Procedural Posture:
- A Du Page County grand jury indicted Michael L. Perry for theft by deception of property exceeding $10,000 in value.
- Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Du Page County, Perry was convicted of the charge, a Class 2 felony, and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.
- Perry, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court held that occupancy of a hotel room is not 'property' and reduced Perry's conviction to a Class 3 felony for theft of property valued between $300 and $10,000, remanding for resentencing.
- The State, as appellant, petitioned for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois, which granted the petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the fraudulent obtaining of temporary occupancy in a hotel room constitute theft of 'property' under the Illinois Criminal Code, allowing for a felony conviction based on the value of the stay?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Carman
Yes. The fraudulent obtaining of temporary occupancy in a hotel room constitutes theft of 'property' under the Illinois Criminal Code because the use of the room is a 'thing of value.' The court reasoned that the statutory definition of property as 'anything of value' is intentionally broad and not limited to tangible goods or the specific items listed in the statute. Citing the statutory definition of 'includes' as a term of illustration rather than limitation, the court held that the use of a hotel room, which is bought and sold in the market, clearly falls within this broad definition. The court further reasoned that a defendant 'permanently deprives' the hotel of the property because for each night of unpaid occupancy, the hotel permanently loses the income it would have received. Finally, the court held that the existence of a more specific misdemeanor statute for theft of services does not preclude prosecutors from charging under the general felony theft statute when its elements, including the high value of the stolen property, are met.
Dissenting - Justice Fitzgerald
No. The mere 'use' of property does not constitute 'property' under the general theft statute, and this conduct should be prosecuted under more specific, less severe statutes. The dissent argued that the majority's interpretation improperly blurs the line between a rental and a sale and dangerously expands the scope of felony theft into civil matters, such as landlord-tenant disputes. It pointed out that the legislature created specific statutes, like the Innkeeper Protection Act and the statute for theft of temporary use, which classify this exact conduct as a misdemeanor for a first offense. This legislative choice indicates an intent to treat such offenses less severely than felony theft of tangible property. The dissent warned that criminalizing what is essentially a breach of contract could have deleterious effects on civil law.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the definition of 'property' for the purposes of the Illinois theft statute, moving beyond tangible items to include intangible rights like the temporary use of accommodations. By overruling prior appellate court precedent that had narrowly interpreted the statute, the court established that value, not tangibility, is the key determinant of what constitutes property. This ruling strengthens the hand of prosecutors in cases of fraud involving services or rentals, allowing them to pursue felony charges based on the aggregated value of the service. It also solidifies prosecutorial discretion to charge under a general felony statute even when a more specific misdemeanor statute addresses the same conduct.
