People v. Comage
| Decision Date | 17 November 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-08-0402.,4-08-0402. |
| Citation | 918 N.E.2d 1211 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny COMAGE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
In February 2008, a jury convicted defendant, Danny Comage, of obstructing justice (720 ILCS 5/31-4(a) (West 2006)). In May 2008, the trial court sentenced defendant to three years in the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC). Defendant appeals, arguing the State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because his act of throwing a crack pipe did not amount to concealment of evidence. We affirm.
In March 2007, The State charged defendant with obstructing justice (720 ILCS 5/31-4(a) (West 2006)), unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia (720 ILCS 600/3.5 (West 2006)), and resisting a peace officer (720 ILCS 5/31-1 (West 2006)). These charges resulted from events that took place as part of the investigation of a gas station theft. Defendant was not charged in relation to the gas station theft.
In July 2007, a jury convicted defendant of obstructing justice and resisting a peace officer but found him not guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial based partly on the fact that one of the State's witnesses made reference to defendant having invoked his right to remain silent during police questioning. In September 2007, the trial court granted defendant's motion for a new trial on the obstructing-justice and resisting-a-peace-officer charges. The State later dismissed the resisting-a-peace-officer charge.
At the second jury trial in February 2008, the following evidence was presented. On the night of March 19, 2007, while investigating a theft at a gas station in Decatur, Officer Chad Larner began looking for the suspect, who had been described as a clean-shaven black man, thinly built, and wearing nice casual dress slacks. Officer Larner stopped defendant and asked for identification. While Larner was checking defendant's information over the police radio, Officer Kathleen Romer arrived on the scene. She noticed defendant was jumping around and appeared nervous. Officer Romer testified defendant advised he needed to urinate and threatened to urinate on the squad car. Thereafter, defendant suddenly ran away from the officers down an alley. The two officers chased him for approximately 20 to 30 yards before defendant stopped.
During the chase, according to the officers, they had an unobstructed view of defendant. While only a short distance behind defendant, the officers saw him reach into his pocket, pull out two rod-like objects that were five to six inches in length, and throw them over a six-foot-tall, wooden privacy fence while he ran down the alley. The fence was just above Officer Larner's eye level. Neither officer saw over what section of the fence defendant threw the items. Defendant stopped approximately 10 to 15 feet from where he threw the items after Officer Romer threatened to use her Taser.
Officer Larner found a crack cocaine pipe and a push rod in the parking lot on the other side of the fence. The general area where the pipe and rod were found had landscape rock under and along the fence about two to three feet wide. Some grass was in the area but no snow. The rest of the parking lot was concrete or asphalt. According to his testimony, Larner located the 2 items in under 20 seconds after apprehending defendant. Although it was nighttime, Officer Larner testified that the parking lot was well-lit and vacant. Larner found the items in the approximate area where defendant had thrown the two items he took from his pocket.
Citing In re M.F., 315 Ill.App.3d 641, 248 Ill.Dec. 463, 734 N.E.2d 171 (2000), defendant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that he had not concealed evidence since the officers observed defendant toss the evidence over the fence and the officers promptly retrieved the evidence. The trial court denied defendant's motion on the grounds that the facts in M.F. were distinguishable from the case before the court. The court specifically stated as follows:
The jury found defendant guilty of obstructing justice. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict and sentenced defendant to three years' imprisonment in DOC.
This appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant argues that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, defendant argues that the State failed to prove defendant "concealed" evidence to prevent his prosecution for possession of drug paraphernalia because the State only demonstrated that defendant "abandoned the crack pipe in full view of police without any reasonable ability to conceal it." The State argues that its burden of proof was met at trial. We agree with the State.
Section 31-4(a) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Code) states:
"A person obstructs justice when, with intent to prevent the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly commits any of the following acts:
(a) Destroys, alters, conceals[,] or disguises physical evidence, plants false evidence, [or] furnishes false information[.]" 720 ILCS 5/31-4(a) (West 2006).
The State charged defendant, "with the intent to obstruct the prosecution of himself for possessing drug paraphernalia, knowingly concealed physical evidence, in that he threw a metal pipe and push-rod over a wooden privacy fence and out of view while being pursued by police."
This court must first determine whether defendant's actions in this case legally constitute concealment under section 31-4(a) of the Code (720 ILCS 5/31-4(a) (West 2006)). The meaning of "conceal" is a question of law, which we review de novo. People v. Ehley, 381 Ill.App.3d 937, 943, 320 Ill.Dec. 628, 887 N.E.2d 772, 778 (2008).
The Code does not define the term "conceal." When a statute does not define a term, the term is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., 219 Ill.2d 182, 243, 302 Ill.Dec. 1, 848 N.E.2d 1, 37 (2005). "Conceal" is defined as follows: "1: to prevent disclosure or recognition of[,] 2: to place out of sight[,] syn see HIDE." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 238 (10th ed.1998). Based on the specific facts in this case, we conclude defendant's actions did conceal the evidence.
Further, the trial court correctly determined that the Second District's opinion in M.F. is distinguishable from the case sub judice. In M.F., the State alleged that M.F. knowingly concealed evidence from police officer Phillip Brown with the intent to obstruct his own prosecution by throwing Baggies containing cocaine off a rooftop. M.F., 315 Ill.App.3d at 642, 248 Ill. Dec. 463, 734 N.E.2d at 173. According to the facts in M.F., Officer Brown was securing the front of a residence while other officers went upstairs to execute a warrant. M.F., 315 Ill.App.3d at 643, 248 Ill.Dec. 463, 734 N.E.2d at 173. Officer Brown heard the other officers knock on the door and announce their presence. M.F., 315 Ill.App.3d at 643, 248 Ill.Dec. 463, 734 N.E.2d at 173. He then saw M.F. come out of a window onto the roof of the building over the entrance. M.F., 315 Ill. App.3d at 643, 248 Ill.Dec. 463, 734 N.E.2d at 173. Officer Brown told M.F. not to move. M.F., 315 Ill.App.3d at 643, 248 Ill.Dec. 463, 734 N.E.2d at 173. M.F. twice reached into his pocket and each time made a throwing motion toward the street behind Officer Brown, who was standing on the sidewalk approximately 30 feet from M.F. M.F., 315 Ill.App.3d at 643, 248 Ill.Dec. 463, 734 N.E.2d at 173. Officer Brown was shining a flashlight on M.F. but could not see what M.F. had in his hands. M.F., 315 Ill.App.3d at 643, 248 Ill.Dec. 463, 734 N.E.2d at 173. Another officer grabbed M.F. through the window and pulled him back into the building. M.F., 315 Ill.App.3d at 643, 248 Ill.Dec. 463, 734 N.E.2d at 173. Officer Brown then looked in the direction M.F. had thrown the objects and found three bags containing a rock-like substance, which tested positive for cocaine, approximately 10 feet from him. M.F., 315 Ill.App.3d at 643-44, 248 Ill.Dec. 463, 734 N.E.2d at 173-74.
The defendant in M.F. argued "he did not conceal the [B]aggies merely by throwing them away from his person, and they were retrieved by the officer within seconds so that his prosecution was not obstructed." M.F., 315 Ill.App.3d at 646, 248 Ill.Dec. 463, 734 N.E.2d at 176. The Second District Appellate Court stated:
(Emphasis in original.) M.F., 315 Ill.App.3d at 646-47, 248 Ill.Dec. 463, 734 N.E.2d at 176.
After thoroughly discussing decisions from other jurisdictions, the Second...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Comage
...that the evidence was concealed and, on that basis, affirmed the defendant's conviction for obstructing justice. 395 Ill.App.3d 560, 335 Ill.Dec. 398, 918 N.E.2d 1211. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court.Background In March 2007, the State charged the......
- Country Mut. Ins. v. Styck's Body Shop Inc.