## Facts

- An eight-year-old boy sat on a bench near a grocery store self-checkout while his mother stood about 10 feet away with the boy’s sister.
- The defendant approached the child and asked if he wanted to come to the defendant’s house to play with “jets or choo-choo trains.”
- The child refused; the defendant persisted by saying it would be “fun.”
- When the mother directed the sister to check on the child, the defendant quickly left the store.
- The child reported the interaction to his family; store employees recorded the license plate of the defendant’s van.
- Police stopped and searched the van, finding weapons, children’s toys, and sexual paraphernalia including restraint devices.
- The defendant was charged with child abduction for attempting to lure a child to a dwelling without parental consent and without legal authority, and faced additional charges related to the van’s contents.
- After a bench trial, the court found the defendant guilty of child abduction; he appealed on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds focused on the attempt element.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant attempted to lure the child to his home, where the child refused and the child’s family was nearby.
2. Whether the defendant’s conduct went beyond mere preparation and satisfied Illinois attempt principles (an overt act/substantial step or “dangerous proximity of success”) for a luring-based child-abduction offense.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to prove an attempt to lure within the child-abduction statute and consistent with Illinois attempt doctrine.
- The court rejected the argument that the nearby presence of the child’s family, the child’s refusal, or the defendant’s departure defeated the attempt element.

## Legal Principles

- A child-abduction statute aimed at luring protects children by criminalizing luring conduct even when the effort is unsuccessful.
- Under Illinois attempt law, the State must show intent and conduct that goes beyond preparation; in luring cases, a direct verbal invitation to leave with the defendant can constitute the overt act toward the offense.
- The “dangerous proximity of success” inquiry is informed by the nature of the target offense; interruption by a parent’s intervention or a child’s refusal does not negate an otherwise completed attempt to lure.
- A reviewing court defers to the trial court’s credibility findings where the testimony is corroborated and supports the elements of the offense.
- Evidence consistent with an improper purpose may support an inference of intent, even if not strictly necessary to prove the luring act itself.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the child-abduction conviction because the defendant’s direct, repeated verbal enticement for an eight-year-old to come to his house constituted a sufficient attempt to lure under the statute, notwithstanding the child’s refusal and the nearby presence of family members.


People v. Sweigart, 985 N.E.2d 1068 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)