dissenting:
The trial court found the defendant guilty on a theory of accountability. Section 5 — 2 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 5 — 2) provides that a “person is legally accountable for the conduct of another when: *** (c) [e]ither before or during the commission of the offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate such commission, he solicits, aids, abets, agrees or attempts to aid such other person in the planning or commission of the offense.” (Emphasis added.)
A person cannot be held accountable as a principal for actions occurring after the offense. (People v. Owens (1975), 32 Ill. App. 3d 893, 896.) The majority here acknowledges that the issue to be determined is whether the defendant knowingly aided Broughton before the offense was completed. Although concluding that the defendant did in fact aid Broughton during the offense, the opinion also contains the following statements:
“Using these definitions, we do not believe that the crime was complete until Broughton removed the box from the truck. *** The theft was completed when Broughton removed the saw from the dominion of Century Tile by putting it in his car trunk.” (Emphasis added.) 221 Ill. App. 3d at 309.
Defendant’s actions consisted of assisting in the removal of the saw from the trunk of Broughton’s car. If, as the majority states, the theft was complete when Broughton either removed the tile saw from the truck or placed it in his car trunk, defendant’s actions clearly took place after the commission of the theft, and, therefore, defendant could not be guilty under an accountability theory.
The majority has correctly stated the facts and the law applicable to the facts but has reached the wrong conclusion. The defendant’s conviction should be reversed.