See People v. Robinson, 2013 IL App (2d) 120087, ¶ 11, 373 Ill.Dec. 727, 994 N.E.2d 212.¶ 10 The reasoning and result of our decision in People v. Murdock, 321 Ill.App.3d 175, 254 Ill.Dec. 965, 748 N.E.2d 683 (2001) controls our decision here. In Murdock, the defendant was convicted of aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer.
625 ILCS 5/11-204(a) (West 2014). ¶ 15 Defendant relies on People v. Murdock , 321 Ill. App. 3d 175, 254 Ill.Dec. 965, 748 N.E.2d 683 (2001), and People v. Williams , 2015 IL App (1st) 133582, 398 Ill.Dec. 505, 44 N.E.3d 534, to support his argument that the State provided insufficient evidence. In Murdock , the State presented no evidence as to whether the officer pursuing the defendant was in uniform.
¶ 115 Defendant argues that the State failed to prove that the officers attempting to make the stop were in uniform and that an officer in a vehicle must have certain lights on the vehicle. In support of his argument, defendant relies on the Second District decision of People v. Murdock , 321 Ill. App. 3d 175, 254 Ill.Dec. 965, 748 N.E.2d 683 (2001). ¶ 116 In Murdock , the defendant was found guilty of aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer, and on appeal, contended that there was no evidence presented that the officer pursuing him was in a police uniform.
¶ 129 Defendant argues that the State failed to prove that the officers attempting to make the stop were in uniform and that an officer in a vehicle must have certain lights on the vehicle. In support of his argument, defendant relies on the Second District decision of People v. Murdock, 321 Ill.App.3d 175, 254 Ill.Dec. 965, 748 N.E.2d 683 (2001). ¶ 130 In Murdock, the defendant was found guilty of aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer, and on appeal, contended that there was no evidence presented that the officer pursuing him was in a police uniform.
¶ 18 In support of defendant's argument, he primarily relies on People v. Murdock, 321 Ill.App.3d 175 (2001), and People v. Williams, 2015 IL App (1st) 133582. In Murdock, 321 Ill.App.3d at 176, the defendant was charged with aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer and argued the evidence was insufficient because no evidence showed the officer who pursued him was in police uniform.
Because proof of an essential element of the offense is lacking, we must reverse one of defendant's convictions for leaving the scene of an accident resulting in damage to an attended vehicle-that is, Schwartz's vehicle-and vacate the corresponding sentence. See People v. Murdock, 321 Ill.App.3d 175, 177 (2001).
In light of this evidence and the statutory presumption contained in section 11-305(d) of the Illinois Vehicle Code, the trier of fact could reasonably determine the red traffic lights that defendant disobeyed were "official traffic control devices" as defined in the Illinois Vehicle Code. See id. Accordingly, we are unable say that the evidence is so improbable, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive that it creates a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt. ¶ 29 Defendant relies on People v. Murdock, 321 Ill. App. 3d 175 (2001) and People v. Lipscomb, 2013 IL App (1st) 120530, for the proposition that "specific proof of every part of every element" is required to convict someone of aggravated fleeing or eluding, but both cases are distinguishable. In Murdock, the defendant was found guilty of aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and evidence was presented that the officer activated overhead emergency lights and a siren. Murdock, 321 Ill. App. 3d at 176-77.
¶ 38 Defendant first argues that his conviction for aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer should be reversed where the State neglected to present evidence as to whether the officers pursuing him were in uniform, which he alleges is an essential element of the statute under which he was convicted. In support of this claim defendant cites to People v. Maxey, 2018 IL App (1st) 130698-B, ¶¶ 117-122, People v. Williams, 2015 IL App (1st) 133582, ¶¶ 8-20 and People v. Murdock, 321 Ill. App. 3d 175, 176 (2001). ¶ 39 In response, the State contends that the statute in question includes the requirement that a police officer be in uniform "because it ensures that the defendant is fleeing or eluding an actual police officer," citing to this court's recent opinion in People v. Cavitt, 2019 IL App (2d) 170149, ¶ 181, appeal pending, (Jan. 1, 2020). The State argues that where there is no question a defendant is aware it is a police vehicle attempting to affect a traffic stop, the uniform requirement is not an element of the offense. ¶ 40 In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, a reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact and will not reverse a conviction if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶ 20 The statutory requirement that an officer be in uniform has been strictly construed. Cavitt, 2019 IL App (2d) 170149, ¶ 176 (citing People v. Williams, 2015 IL App (1st) 133582, ¶¶ 14, 16; People v. Murdock, 321 Ill. App. 3d 175, 176 (2001)). Thus, in cases where the evidence showed that the officer either wore purely civilian clothes (Williams, 2015 IL App (1st) 133582, ¶¶ 14, 16), or where there was no evidence of how the officer was dressed (Murdock, 321 Ill. App. 3d at 176), the appellate court has reversed the conviction.
The State agrees that defendant's conviction must be reversed. ¶ 54 That the officer who gives the signal for a driver to stop his vehicle shall be in a police uniform and is an essential element of the offense of fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer. Id.; see also People v. Murdock, 321 Ill. App. 3d 175, 177 (2001). In turn, it is also an essential element of the aggravated form of the same offense.