People v. Carlton, 56964

• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: RYAN
• Citation: 455 N.E.2d 1385,98 Ill.2d 187,74 Ill.Dec. 492
• Parties: , 74 Ill.Dec. 492 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Mark J. CARLTON, Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 56964,56964
• Decision Date: 21 October 1983

Page 1385

455 N.E.2d 1385 98 Ill.2d 187, 74 Ill.Dec. 492 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant,
v.
Mark J. CARLTON, Appellee. No. 56964. Supreme Court of Illinois. Oct. 21, 1983.

[98 Ill.2d 188] Tyrone C. Fahner, former Atty. Gen., Neil F. Hartigan, Atty. Gen., Chicago, Phyllis J. Perko, Deputy Director, Marshall Stevens, Staff Atty., State's Attys. Appellate Service Com'n, Elgin, for appellant; J. Michael Fitzsimmons, State's Atty., DuPage County, Wheaton, of counsel.

Frank Wesolowski, Jr., Public Defender for DuPage County, Wheaton, for appellee; Eugene A. Wojcik, Jr., Deputy Public Defender, Wheaton, of counsel.

[98 Ill.2d 189]

Page 1386

[74 Ill.Dec. 493] RYAN, Chief Justice:

Pursuant to Rule 604(a)(1) (87 Ill.2d R. 604(a)(1)), the State appealed from an order of the circuit court of DuPage County suppressing evidence seized by the police from the trunk of a car in which the defendant, Mark J. Carlton, was a passenger. However, the prosecutor failed to certify that suppression of the evidence substantially impaired the State's ability to prosecute the case. The appellate court held that by virtue of our opinion in People v. Young (1980), 82 Ill.2d 234, 45 Ill.Dec. 150, 412 N.E.2d 501, the State may not seek an interlocutory appeal of a pretrial suppression order unless it certifies to the trial court that the suppression of evidence substantially impairs its ability to prosecute the case. (106 Ill.App.3d 780, 62 Ill.Dec. 694, 436 N.E.2d 720.) After the appellate court remanded for the filing of a certificate of impairment, we allowed the People's petition for leave to appeal.

The sole issue on review is whether the People must file a certificate of impairment in every interlocutory appeal of a pretrial order suppressing evidence under Rule 604(a)(1).

Article VI, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 provides that there shall be no appeal from a judgment of acquittal after a trial on the merits in a criminal case and further states:

"The Supreme Court may provide by rule for appeals to the Appellate Court from other than final judgments of Circuit Courts." Ill. Const.1970, art. VI, sec. 6.

Exercising this constitutional authority, this court adopted Rule 604(a)(1), which provides for appeal by the State in criminal cases:

"(1) When State May Appeal. In criminal cases the State may appeal only from an order or judgment the substantive effect of which results in dismissing a charge for any of the grounds enumerated in section 114-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963; arresting judgment[98 Ill.2d 190] because of a defective indictment, information or complaint; quashing an arrest or search warrant; or suppressing evidence." (Emphasis added.) 87 Ill.2d R. 604(a)(1).

We are here concerned only with that part of Rule 604(a)(1) relating to the suppression of evidence. That provision of the rule has been the source of a considerable amount of litigation. The language of the rule is broad and appears on its face to grant to the State a broad right of appeal from orders precluding the admission of evidence. However, the courts of this State have not accorded a broad construction to this provision of the rule and have devised various interpretations for limiting its application. After this court's decision in People v. Van De Rostyne (1976), 63 Ill.2d 364, 349 N.E.2d 16, several appellate court decisions in this State refused to permit appeals by the State under this provision of the rule, unless the evidence had been suppressed because of an illegal search and seizure, or because of an involuntary confession. These two grounds for suppression assumed a role of importance in the application of Rule 604(a)(1) and, as discussed later, are urged by the State in this case as a reason why it is unnecessary to certify that the suppression order substantially impairs the State's ability to prosecute its case.

In People v. Young this court examined the history of the State's right to an interlocutory appeal under both the 1870 Constitution and the present constitution. We also discussed the various constructions of Rule 604(a)(1) and the Van De Rostyne holding referred to above. We noted that the State's right to appeal under the "suppressing evidence" provision of the rule is not limited to cases involving illegally seized evidence or involuntary...