Legal Implications of Involving Children in Criminal Activity: The Naperville Example

It is an unfortunate reality that kids are sometimes used by adults to help them carry out a criminal act, because the kids can often avoid the more serious criminal charges an adult would face, and therefore the adult is protected from prosecution. Or so they think. Enlisting a child to do your dirty work in the eyes of the law is also a punishable crime. 

A Theft at the Mall  

In a recent incident, a woman allegedly had her 5-year-old and 9-year-old daughters help her in an attempt to steal thousands of dollars worth of merchandise from a J.C. Penney at a mall in suburban Lombard.

They had apparently hidden more than $4,000 worth of clothes, shoes, and toys in a piece of luggage and a baby stroller. The piece of luggage was also stolen, though the baby stroller appears to have been theirs.  

The family attempted to casually walk out of the store past the cash registers without checking out and paying for the items before they were apprehended. There is no information to indicate whether the children were aware of their mother's scheme, or whether she was simply hoping their childhood innocence would prevent them from realizing what was happening and inadvertently spoiling it.  

On the other hand, there may be an argument to be made by the mother that the children had grabbed the items and stuffed them into their stroller without her realizing it.

It is difficult to always keep an eye on your children, especially in a public place where you may be distracted, and the children may be running amok. She could have looked away for a minute or two while the children, knowingly or not, engaged in a bit of retail theft.  

This is dubious in this case; however, given that there was also a piece of luggage stuffed with items, the mother would have likely realized that they were walking out with luggage that they did not walk in with. It is also interesting that they had a baby stroller with them, considering that the children are old enough to have aged out of a baby stroller.  

This is not to say that the children may not require a stroller or other types of assistance getting around a big place like a mall, but local news outlets specified it was a "baby stroller" and not some other type of stroller intended for older kids, nor some other type of assistance vehicle.

Speculation around the mobility status of the children is not for the public to do, but it raises questions as to intent and may be important for the Court to weigh whether the family arrived at the mall with the goal of committing a theft or whether this somehow occurred by accident using an item that many families with young children frequently employ, like a stroller. 

Reporting by Fox 32 Chicago indicates that some sort of preliminary investigation had been carried out, likely by the mall security staff, at the time of the arrest. According to that article, "an investigation revealed that" the woman "allegedly enlisted her 5- and 9-year-old daughters to help her conceal items". So it stands to reason that there was some sort of clue as to the mindset of the mother and the children at the time of the incident. 

As it stands now, this is all conjecture. There may very well be a reasonable explanation for this woman's behavior. She is, of course, innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law.

It may be possible to take an empathetic view of the situation and point to the fact that the items stolen, save for the piece of luggage, were all children's items like clothing, shoes, and toys. It could be that this family is struggling financially, and the mother decided to take this drastic action in order to clothe her children.  

There are alternatives to the unlawful route she took, though, and now she will be faced with the fees associated with navigating the criminal justice system. These can include hefty fines, payment for attorney services, lost income from days spent in Court, and the list goes on.

Not to mention the notoriety of having her mug shot readily available along with her name on the internet. This could cost her future employment and create an even bigger problem for her family if finances were already strained.  

Release on One's Own Recognizance 

The woman was released on her own recognizance. This is a fancy way of saying that she was let go without having to pay bail in exchange for signing a written promise to appear in Court. She avoided pre-trial detention due to the fact that she did not commit a violent offense, and it was determined that she was not a flight risk and that she did not pose a threat to the public while she awaits Court. 

Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor 

The woman has been charged with two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, one count for each of her daughters. According to the Illinois Compiled Statutes, "a person commits contributing to the delinquency of a minor when he or she knowingly:  

(1) causes, aids, or encourages a minor to be or to become a delinquent minor; or  

(2) does acts which directly tend to render any minor so delinquent."  

A "delinquent minor" means any minor who  

(1) "prior to his or her 17th birthday has violated or attempted to violate" "any federal or State law or county or municipal ordinance," and  

(2) any minor who violates or attempts to violate any of the above mentioned laws or ordinances if those laws or ordinances are classified as a misdemeanor offense and the minor is under 18 years old. 

In the case at hand, the prosecution will have to show that the mother caused, aided, or encouraged her daughters to violate state law and local ordinances against theft by instructing them to steal the merchandise from the store, and that she actively did so while having had the requisite knowledge that her actions were unlawful. The children are both under the age of 17 and were implicated in a violation of state and local laws, so unfortunately, they would fall under the definition of a delinquent minor.  

A more serious offense is contributing to the criminal delinquency of a minor. This is defined in the statute thusly: 

"A person of the age of 21 years and upwards commits contributing to the criminal delinquency of a minor when he or she, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of an offense solicits, compels or directs a minor in the commission of the offense that is either:  

1. a felony when the minor is under the age of 17 years; or  
2. a misdemeanor when the minor is under the age of 18 years." 

To understand whether the situation in question involves felonies or just misdemeanors, it is important to analyze the sentencing guidelines in the statute.  

• A violation of the first portion of the statute, namely contributing to the delinquency of a minor, is a Class A misdemeanor.  
• A violation of the second portion of the statute, namely contributing to the criminal delinquency of a minor, is: 

1. a Class C misdemeanor if the offense committed is a petty offense or a business offense; 
2. a Class B misdemeanor if the offense committed is a Class C misdemeanor; 
3. a Class A misdemeanor if the offense committed is a Class B misdemeanor; 
4. a Class 4 felony if the offense committed is a Class A misdemeanor; 
5. a Class 3 felony if the offense committed is a Class 4 felony; 
6. a Class 2 felony if the offense committed is a Class 3 felony; 
7. a Class 1 felony if the offense committed is a Class 2 felony; and 
8. a Class X felony if the offense committed is a Class 1 felony or a Class X felony. 

The lower the number is on a felony count, the more serious the offense. If convicted on the two charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, she will be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. But if she were to be convicted on the charge of contributing to the criminal delinquency of a minor, her sentence will depend on the offenses which constitute delinquency of her children.  

Retail Theft 

This is where the charge of retail theft comes into play. There are 8 ways someone can commit retail theft, as per the statute, but only 2 are relevant to the matter at hand. The Illinois Criminal Code explains that a person commits retail theft when they knowingly do any of the following things: 

1. Takes possession of, carries away, transfers, or causes to be carried away or transferred any merchandise displayed, held, stored, or offered for sale in a retail mercantile establishment with the intention of retaining such merchandise or with the intention of depriving the merchant permanently of the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise without paying the full retail value of such merchandise; or 
2. Transfers any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale in a retail mercantile establishment from the container in or on which such merchandise is displayed to any other container with the intention of depriving the merchant of the full retail value of such merchandise. 

In this situation, the woman may indeed be proven to have taken possession of the merchandise offered for sale, tried to carry it away, transferred it to the baby stroller and luggage, and potentially caused it to be carried away in the stroller and luggage. Her intent to deprive the merchant, J.C. Penney, of the merchandise will need to be proven as well. What can be determined about section (1) immediately, without the Court, is that she did not pay the full retail value of the merchandise. 

The prosecution may also try to prove that the woman transferred the merchandise which was offered for sale in a retail establishment into another container than the one it was displayed in, with the intention of depriving J.C. Penney of those items.

Here, she and/or her children transferred the items into the baby stroller and luggage. This seems fairly straightforward and doesn't need further analysis, given that the facts show that the items were in their stroller and in the luggage, so it's pretty clear that they put them there, absent some really surprising turn of events.  

A violation of these two sections, if the full retail value of the merchandise in question exceeds $300, is a Class 3 felony. Here, the merchandise was worth much more than $300, totaling more than $4,000. If the allegations are proven in Court, she will be guilty of a Class 3 felony.

Based on the sentencing guidelines for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, because the retail theft charge may lead to a Class 3 felony, the contributing to the delinquency of a minor charge would be a Class 2 felony, meaning that it's an even worse charge.  

Burglary 

The woman is also charged with burglary.  The statute states that "a person commits burglary when without authority he or she knowingly enters or without authority remains within a building" "with intent to commit therein a felony or theft." This charge is indicative of the mindset of the prosecution.

They are essentially saying that the woman came to the mall's J.C. Penney with the intent to commit the theft. A question arises here as to the portion about entering the building without authority. If the family entered the store as any shopper is welcome to do during store hours, then why would they not have had the authority to be there? This will be analyzed and decided by the Court.  

A burglary committed in a building is a Class 2 felony. 

In Conclusion 

This instance could have been avoided, but we do not know the circumstances leading up to it, nor what the outcome will be. We can only hope that the children will not be too adversely affected by this situation.