People v. $5,608 US CURRENCY, 2-04-0988.
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Citation | 835 N.E.2d 920,359 Ill. App.3d 891,296 Ill.Dec. 567 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-04-0988.,2-04-0988. |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. $5,608 UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 14 September 2005 |
835 N.E.2d 920
359 Ill. App.3d 891
296 Ill.Dec. 567
The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
$5,608 UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 2-04-0988.
Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.
September 14, 2005.
John A. Barsanti, Kane County State's Attorney, St. Charles, Martin P. Moltz, Deputy Director, Mary Beth Burns, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Elgin, for the People.
No brief filed for appellee.
Justice BOWMAN delivered the opinion of the court:
The State filed a complaint for the forfeiture of $5,608 that had been seized from Richard Brown, who was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. Brown answered the complaint and asserted that the money was not subject to forfeiture. Brown passed away during the course of the proceedings, and his wife, Denise Brown, was appointed as special administrator. At trial, the court sustained her objections that the State's evidence was inadmissible under the Dead-Man's Act (735 ILCS 5/8-201 (West 2002)), and it granted her motion for a directed finding. On appeal, the State argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that the Dead-Man's Act precluded the presentation of its case-in-chief. We reverse and remand.
The State filed its complaint for forfeiture on February 22, 2002. It alleged that the money was seized from Brown's residence and that the money was used or intended to be used in a manner that violated the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/100 et seq. (West 2002)).
The amended forfeiture complaint, filed on July 8, 2004, alleged the following. The police executed a search warrant at defendant's residence on November 7, 2001. Brown was on a sofa in the living room. "Under the person of Richard Brown," the police found a pouch with several plastic baggies containing a white powder, which "field tested" positive for the presence of cocaine. The police searched Brown and found $5,308 and three $100 gaming chips. Brown also had a key that unlocked a safe on the premises. The safe contained a white powder substance that also tested positive for the presence of cocaine.
The State instituted forfeiture proceedings against the $5,608 under section 6(A) of the Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (Forfeiture Act) (725 ILCS 150/6(A) (West 2002)). On February 22, 2002, Brown filed a claim and answer to the State's complaint. Brown asserted that the money was not subject to forfeiture because he earned the money legitimately, and he requested its return. See 725 ILCS 150/8(A)(i) (West 2002).
A supplemental disclosure, filed by Brown's attorney on September 4, 2003, showed checks that Denise had made out to various casinos and gambling vouchers from the casinos in Brown's name. Brown's attorney moved for summary judgment on October 10, 2003, arguing that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the money came from legitimate gambling winnings. On December 3, 2003, the trial court noted that Brown had passed away and that his estate was now the claimant.
On March 17, 2004, Brown's attorney moved to have Denise appointed as special administrator in the case. The motion alleged that Brown had passed away on July 10, 2003, and that, following his death, the State had nol-prossed the criminal charges against him. The trial court granted the motion on April 24, 2004.
On August 11, 2004, the State moved for summary judgment, arguing that because Denise had not properly responded to the State's request to admit facts, the facts became admitted. The trial court denied the State's motion and allowed Denise to file an amended answer to the request to admit facts.
The case proceeded to trial on August 18, 2004. According to the bystander's report, the State called Detective Patrick Gengler of the Kane County sheriff's office. Detective Gengler testified that he had been a detective sergeant in narcotics
Detective Gengler further testified that he, along with a SWAT team, executed a search warrant at 803 Kensington Place at 5:30 p.m. on November 7, 2001. Officers rammed the door and found Brown lying in front of a couch. Detective Gengler searched the couch and Brown.
Denise objected to the testimony, arguing that it was barred by the Dead-Man's Act. The State responded that the Dead-Man's Act did not apply, because the detective was not an interested party under the statute since he did not stand to gain from the case's outcome. The trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate v. McDonald, 2-19-1113
...unless the error was substantially prejudicial and affected the outcome of the trial. People v. $5,608 United States Currency , 359 Ill. App. 3d 891, 895, 296 Ill.Dec. 567, 835 N.E.2d 920 (2005).¶ 77 We begin our analysis with a review of Laurence , 164 Ill. 367, 45 N.E. 1071. In that case,......
-
Witness
...5/8-201, was not misapplied since that procedure kept jury from hearing offensive testimony. People v. $5,608 United States Currency , 359 Ill. App. 3d 891, 894-96 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). Trial court abused its discretion in applying the Dead Man’s Act to bar testimony of a detective in a for......
-
Valley Forge Ins. v. Swiderski Electronics, 101261.
...appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (210 Ill.2d R. 304(a)). The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. 359 Ill.App.3d at 891, 296 Ill.Dec. 5, 834 N.E.2d 562. The court observed that almost all prior litigation regarding insurance coverage for TCPA claims has pr......
-
Gen. Auto Serv. Station, LLC v. Garrett, 1–15–1924.
...But agents of an adverse party are not disqualified as witnesses under the Dead Man's Act. People v. $5,608 United States Currency, 359 Ill.App.3d 891, 895–96, 296 Ill.Dec. 567, 835 N.E.2d 920 (2005) (assuming arguendo that detective 401 Ill.Dec. 66750 N.E.3d 1149 was agent of State, he was......
-
Estate v. McDonald
...unless the error was substantially prejudicial and affected the outcome of the trial. People v. $5,608 United States Currency , 359 Ill. App. 3d 891, 895, 296 Ill.Dec. 567, 835 N.E.2d 920 (2005).¶ 77 We begin our analysis with a review of Laurence , 164 Ill. 367, 45 N.E. 1071. In that case,......
-
Valley Forge Ins. v. Swiderski Electronics, 101261.
...appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (210 Ill.2d R. 304(a)). The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. 359 Ill.App.3d at 891, 296 Ill.Dec. 5, 834 N.E.2d 562. The court observed that almost all prior litigation regarding insurance coverage for TCPA claims has pr......
-
Gen. Auto Serv. Station, LLC v. Garrett, 1–15–1924.
...But agents of an adverse party are not disqualified as witnesses under the Dead Man's Act. People v. $5,608 United States Currency, 359 Ill.App.3d 891, 895–96, 296 Ill.Dec. 567, 835 N.E.2d 920 (2005) (assuming arguendo that detective 401 Ill.Dec. 66750 N.E.3d 1149 was agent of State, he was......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Plough, 2-16-0307
...will directly experience a monetary gain or loss as an immediate result of the judgment." People v. $5,608 United States Currency , 359 Ill. App. 3d 891, 895, 296 Ill.Dec. 567, 835 N.E.2d 920 (2005) ; see also Michalski v. Chicago Title & Trust Co. , 50 Ill. App. 3d 335, 339, 8 Ill.Dec. 416......
-
Witness
...5/8-201, was not misapplied since that procedure kept jury from hearing offensive testimony. People v. $5,608 United States Currency , 359 Ill. App. 3d 891, 894-96 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). Trial court abused its discretion in applying the Dead Man’s Act to bar testimony of a detective in a for......