People v. Edwards (In re Edwards)
| Decision Date | 08 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1-20-0192 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (1st) 200192,193 N.E.3d 699,456 Ill.Dec. 459 |
| Parties | IN RE COMMITMENT OF Alfred EDWARDS (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Alfred Edwards, Respondent-Appellant). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Michael R. Johnson and Daniel T. Coyne, of Johnson & Levine LLC, of Chicago, for appellant.
Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Chicago (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Glick and Joshua M. Schneider, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 After a jury trial, respondent Alfred Edwards was found to be a sexually violent person under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (SVP Act) ( 725 ILCS 207/1 to 99 (West 2018)) and was ordered committed to institutional care in a secure facility. Respondent appeals, claiming (1) that the trial court deprived him of his statutory right to be present during the court proceedings, (2) that the court erred in failing to ask a question requested by respondent during voir dire , and (3) that the court deprived respondent of a fair trial through comments made by the court in the presence of the jury during the trial. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
¶ 3 On September 22, 2009, the State filed a petition to civilly commit respondent as a sexually violent person under the SVP Act,1 alleging that respondent had been convicted of attempted criminal sexual assault, a sexually violent offense under the SVP Act, in two separate cases, for which he served seven years in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). The petition alleged that respondent suffers from "Paraphilia, Not Otherwise Specified, Nonconsenting Persons" and "Schizophrenia, Undifferentiated, Chronic"—mental disorders that predisposed respondent to sexual violence—and further alleged that respondent was dangerous because his mental disorders made it substantially probable that he would be a repeat offender and engage in future acts of sexual violence. The State's petition was supported by an evaluation conducted by Ray Quackenbush, Psy, D., a "consulting psychologist" with Affiliated Psychologists, Ltd., an independent company providing evaluation services to the IDOC.2
¶ 4 On October 16, 2009, respondent's counsel filed a petition for a fitness evaluation, alleging that counsel had a bona fide doubt about respondent's fitness to stand trial. Respondent's petition was consolidated with three other similar petitions, and on February 19, 2010, all four petitions were denied. The trial court granted the respondents’ petition to certify several questions concerning the right to a fitness evaluation for interlocutory review, and we answered the certified questions in the negative, finding no right to a fitness evaluation in civil commitment proceedings under the SVP Act. In re Commitment of Weekly , 2011 IL App (1st) 102276, ¶ 75, 353 Ill.Dec. 772, 956 N.E.2d 634.
¶ 5 After the issuance of this court's opinion, a probable cause hearing was held on September 12, 2012; respondent was not present at the probable cause hearing. On the same day, the trial court entered an order finding probable cause to believe that respondent is a sexually violent person and ordered him detained at a facility approved by the Department of Human Services (DHS). The parties then engaged in discovery and other pretrial matters and ultimately scheduled a trial date of April 8, 2019.
¶ 6 On March 28, 2019, respondent's counsel filed a motion for a continuance, claiming that counsel had been unable to communicate with respondent in preparation for the upcoming trial, either in person or by phone. This lack of communication meant that counsel had not been able to discuss with respondent whether he would prefer a bench or jury trial, whether he wanted to testify, or any details about his case. Counsel acknowledged that respondent did not have a right to a fitness evaluation but continued to have a bona fide doubt of respondent's fitness, based on the records from the treatment and detention facility (TDF) showing that respondent had reported both auditory and visual hallucinations on numerous occasions over the past year. Counsel also claimed that respondent had never been admonished as to a trial in absentia and that counsel had a bona fide doubt that respondent would be able to understand such admonishments. Accordingly, counsel requested a continuance and a new trial date.
¶ 7 Attached to the motion was an affidavit from one of respondent's attorneys, who averred that, over the past five years, his attorneys had attempted to visit respondent in person, with unsuccessful results. In over 16 attempts to visit respondent, respondent declined the visits 14 times. On the two occasions where respondent met with any of his attorneys, the visits lasted for 20 minutes and 8 minutes, respectively, and based on the conversations and conduct of respondent during those visits, respondent's attorneys continued to have a bona fide doubt as to respondent's fitness. The last conversation his trial attorney had with respondent was by phone on May 25, 2018, for approximately 15 minutes, at which time counsel attempted to explain the proceedings to respondent; according to the attorney's affidavit, counsel did not believe that respondent understood the explanation, and counsel continued to have a bona fide doubt as to respondent's fitness. Respondent also regularly declined mail that had been sent to him by his attorneys and last appeared in court on April 13, 2012. Counsel estimated that, over the last five years, respondent's attorneys had spoken with respondent for approximately 45 minutes, with his trial attorney speaking with respondent for only 15 minutes.
¶ 8 On March 29, 2019, the trial court entered an order denying the motion for continuance. The order provided, in full:
¶ 9 During the April 1, 2019, motion in limine hearing, the parties also discussed questions to be asked during jury selection, and respondent's counsel tendered several proposed questions. As relevant to the issues on appeal, counsel requested the court to ask the venire:
The trial court agreed to ask a version of the first proposed question, without specifying the number of offenses, but declined to ask the second proposed question, finding that the question inappropriately related to the specific evidence in the case.
¶ 10 The jury trial on the State's petition began on April 8, 2019. Prior to trial, the assistant attorney general noted that respondent "has declined to be present," and a secured therapist aide from the TDF testified about reading the court's March 29 order to respondent. Stephanie Jackson testified that she was a secured therapy aide at the Rushville TDF, where respondent is detained. Jackson and her captain, K. Smith, spoke with respondent in his room at 3:30 a.m. and asked if he was going to attend court that morning. Respondent stated that he was not, and Jackson asked him why. Respondent informed her that he was "sick." Jackson then read respondent the court's March 29 order, from beginning to end, and then asked respondent whether he was refusing to attend court. Respondent said that he was. Jackson asked respondent if he understood the warning read to him, and he responded that he did. Respondent then signed the "writ refusal form" stating that he was choosing not to appear in court. Jackson asked respondent if he was sure that he wished to refuse to attend, and respondent confirmed that he was sure.
¶ 11 On cross-examination, Jackson testified that, when she read the court's order to respondent, she did not ask him to repeat anything from the order or to explain the order in his own words. She further testified that, when he told her he did not feel well, she did not offer to take him to the doctor. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial