The PEOPLE v. Zierlion
1959 Ill. LEXIS 257, 16 Ill. 2d 217, 157 N.E.2d 72 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who only provides assistance to burglars after the goods have been removed from the building cannot be convicted as a principal in the crime of burglary; such assistance constitutes the separate offense of being an accessory after the fact.
Facts:
- Tony Gallas, Tom Hills, Paul Petropulos, and Ronald Utterbach entered the office-warehouse of Martin Oil Service, Inc.
- The four men pushed a company safe out of a second-floor window into the yard of the premises.
- Finding the safe too heavy to move, the men left to find assistance.
- The men went to a tavern where they met Richard Zierlion and Mike Rudis and recruited them for help.
- Zierlion and Rudis accompanied the original four men back to the yard of Martin Oil Service, Inc. to retrieve the safe.
- As some of the men attempted to load the safe into the trunk of a car, they were confronted by police.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Zierlion was charged with burglary in the criminal court of Cook County.
- Following a bench trial before a judge sitting without a jury, Zierlion was convicted of burglary.
- The trial court sentenced Zierlion to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of one to four years.
- Zierlion appealed his conviction to the Illinois Supreme Court by writ of error, arguing the evidence was insufficient for a conviction.
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 a person who assists others in moving a safe, only after that safe has already been removed from a building by those others, become a principal in the crime of burglary?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Klingbier
No. A person who only assists in moving a safe after it has been removed from a building is not a principal in the crime of burglary. To be convicted of burglary, an accused must have entered a building with the intent to commit a felony. The evidence only shows Zierlion's involvement began after the safe was already outside the building. Assisting burglars after the central elements of the crime (the entry) have been completed makes one an accessory after the fact, which is an independent and separate offense, not a principal to the original burglary.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Davis
Yes. A person who joins a criminal enterprise to help carry away stolen property, even after the initial entry, is a principal in the crime of burglary. The crime of burglary was a continuing offense because the larceny, which was the purpose of the entry, was still in progress. The original perpetrators had not abandoned their criminal enterprise but were merely seeking assistance to complete it. By joining and aiding them, Zierlion became an accessory who aided and abetted the perpetration of the crime, making him liable as a principal, much like a getaway driver or lookout who never enters the building.
Analysis:
This decision narrowly defines the temporal scope of burglary, establishing that the crime is complete upon the exit from the structure. By rejecting the 'continuing offense' theory for burglary, the court draws a bright line between being a principal and an accessory after the fact. This precedent makes it more difficult for prosecutors to convict individuals as principals if their involvement begins only after the stolen property has been removed from the premises, requiring a clear showing of participation or aiding and abetting before or during the entry.
