People v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 29 March 1977
• Docket Number: No. 75--451,75--451
• Citation: 361 N.E.2d 842,5 Ill.Dec. 519,47 Ill.App.3d 278
• Parties: , 5 Ill.Dec. 519 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. James MURPHY, Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 842

361 N.E.2d 842

47 Ill.App.3d 278, 5 Ill.Dec. 519

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. James MURPHY, Appellant.

No. 75--451.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, Second Division.

March 29, 1977.

Ralph Ruebner, Deputy State App. Defender, Joshua Sachs, Elgin, for appellant.

Jack Hoogasian, State's Atty., Waukegan, Phyllis J. Perko, Ill. State's Attys. Assn., Elgin, for appellee.

GUILD, Justice:

Defendant herein was indicted for rape and indecent liberties. He was tried by a jury, found guilty of indecent liberties and sentenced to 12--70 years imprisonment. He appeals.

The defendant, in substance, was charged with sexually molesting a 6 year old girl on August 31, 1974 in Lake County. No purpose would be served in setting forth the details of the offense. He was arrested on September 9, 1974 and the following chronology sets forth the dates of the progress of this prosecution.

On October 24, 1974, after the indictment, the cause was set for trial on December 2, 1974 and continued to November 8th for a status report. On the same date the defendant made a motion for discovery, as did the State. On October 28th the State filed an affidavit of compliance with the discovery order. On November 8th defense counsel advised the court that she had not complied with the discovery order and she was directed to do so by November 12th. At the same time, on November 8th, defendant's counsel advised the court that she was going to file a motion to suppress and the court directed her to file the same by November 14th. Also on November 8th defendant's counsel made a motion for a polygraph test and a spermatoza test by a pathologist. The cause was then continued to November 18th. On that date the cause was called but defendant's counsel did not appear and the court continued the matter until November 19th. On November 19th the court set the motion to suppress for hearing on December 3rd and the trial to follow thereafter on that date. On December 3rd, the date set for trial and for the hearing on the motion to suppress, the State's Attorney told the court that he had discovered that Illinois Revised Statutes, chapter 23, paragraphs 2401 and 2402 imposed an obligation on the court to order a pre-trial psychiatric examination of a party charged with indecent liberties. The State's Attorney further advised the court that such an examination would abate any further proceedings until the statute had been complied with. The court thereupon continued the matter generally and a few days later appointed two psychiatrists to make such an examination under the provisions of chapter 23, paragraphs 2401 and 2402. The purpose of these examinations or what action the trial court should take upon the psychiatric reports it receives is not clear from the statute or the case law. People v. Leonard (1976), 34 Ill.App.3d 911, 341 N.E.2d 141. However, it is clear that the trial court and the State's Attorney were in error in believing that these examinations were mandatory. In People v. Pierce (1976), 62 Ill.2d 223, 255, 341 N.E.2d 705, 706, the Supreme Court held that this statute, 'properly interpreted, requires the court to order psychiatric examinations only when the defendant has requested such examinations.' The motion to suppress was heard on January 20, 1975. The motion was denied after a complete hearing and on January 21, 1975, 134 days after the defendant's arrest, the trial commenced. This trial resulted in a mistrial and a new trial was set, which commenced on February 10, 1975 resulting in the conviction of the defendant.

Defendant has urged five grounds as a basis for a reversal of his conviction. They are as follows. 1. The defendant was entitled to a discharge under the 120 day rule (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, 103-- 5(a), (d).) 2. A hearing should have been held to determine the defendant's fitness to stand trial. 3. The defendant did not receive proper representation by counsel. 4. Hearsay evidence was improperly admitted. 5. The sentence of 12--70 years for the offense herein was excessive.

We turn first to the contention of the defendant that he was entitled to discharge under the 120 day rule. On October 21, 1974 the cause was assigned to Judge Henry H. Caldwell. On October 23, 1974 the defendant's counsel entered her appearance and moved for a substitution of judges, from Judge Caldwell and Judge Geiger. On the same date the matter was transferred to the chief judge for reassignment and on the same date the cause was placed on the trial call of Judge Van Deusen. This raises the first question as to this issue, and that is whether the motion for substitution of judges tolls the statute. It is, of course, to be noted that the cause was reassigned to a new judge on the same date that the motion for substitution was made. In a somewhat similar situation the Supreme Court in People v. Zuniga (1973), 53 Ill.2d 550, 293 N.E.2d 595, considered the situation where a substitution of judge was requested and the reassignment made on the same date. The Court said:

'This court has held that a motion for a substitution of judges constitutes a delay occasioned by the accused which will interrupt the running of the statutory period.' 53 Ill.2d at 553, 293 N.E.2d at 597.

The Court observed that when the cause was reassigned to another judge that it would be assumed that defendant's case would presumably be placed at the bottom of the list of the new judge's then pending cases and further observed that it would be impossible to state whether the motion for substitution of judges actually delayed bringing defendant's case to trial or advanced it. See also, People v. Rankins (1960), 18 Ill.2d 260, 163 N.E.2d 814; People v. Iasello (1951), 410 Ill. 252, 102 N.E.2d 138. Most recently, in People v. Spicuzza (1974), 57 Ill.2d 152, 155, 311 N.E.2d 112, 114, the Supreme Court again considered this issue and stated:

'This court has repeatedly held, most recently in People v. Zuniga, 53 Ill.2d 550, 293 N.E.2d 595, that a motion for a change of judges constitutes delay occasioned by the defendant which will toll the 120-day period, and we see no reason to depart from that principle here.'

See also, People v. Richmond (1975), 34 Ill.App.3d 328, 340 N.E.2d 240 to the same effect.

This court recognizes the fact that section 103--5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, 103--5) has been amended effective March 1, 1977. (See Ill.Rev.Stat.1976 Supp. ch. 38, 103--5(f).) By this amendment the delay occasioned by the defendant will not start the 120 day period running anew; the actual time of the delay temporarily suspends the period in which the defendant shall be tried. This statute is not applicable to the situation before us. We, therefore, find that the delay occasioned by the substitution of judges herein does in fact toll the running of the 120 day period as provided for under section 103--5(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The next issue relative to the tolling of this statute is the question of whether or not the defendant's motion to suppress tolls the running of this statute. On both November 8th and November 19, 1974 defense counsel served notice upon the State that she would appear and move to suppress the oral and written statements of the defendant. The motion to suppress was not filed on either date. On November 19, 1974 the trial judge indicated a hearing on the motion to suppress would be held on December 3, 1974 rather than on December 2nd as originally scheduled. Unfortunately the motion to suppress is not included in the record herein but the court and counsel for both the State and defendant recognize the fact that the same was, in fact, filed and a lengthy hearing had thereon on December 3rd. In People v. Schoeneck (1971), 1 Ill.App.3d 395, 274 N.E.2d 483, this court considered the question of whether or not a motion to suppress evidence constitutes delay in trial caused by the defendant. We held in that case that the defendant's motion to suppress the lineup identification and to suppress statements caused delay in the trial attributable to the defendant. The same situation is presented here. The most recent case involving this question is People v. Donalson (1976), 64 Ill.2d 536, 1 Ill.Dec. 494, 356 N.E.2d 776. There the Supreme Court held that the defendant did, in fact, cause delay in filing his motion to suppress his confession as the court was required to conduct a hearing into the merits of this motion. The court further observed in Donalson,

'. . . when a defendant files motions such as a motion to suppress evidence, he is ordinarily chargeable with the delay occasioned by the filing of the motion and he moreover has the primary obligation to call the motion for hearing and disposition.' 64 Ill.2d at 542, 1 Ill.Dec. at 496, 356 N.E.2d at 778.

See also, People v. Wilson (1974), 19 Ill.App.3d 466, 311 N.E.2d 759. In the instant case the court, on November 19th, set the hearing on the motion to suppress on December 3rd by which time the motion itself had been filed. We fail, indeed, to see how these actions relative to the motion to suppress can be held to be other than a delay attributable to the defendant and we so hold. See also, People v. Ross (1971), 132 Ill.App.2d 1095, 271 N.E.2d 100; People v. Jones (1971), 130 Ill.App.2d 769, 266 N.E.2d 411.

The question has arisen in this regard as to whether or not a delay in trial is attributable to defendant for its handling of discovery. We recognize, of course, that not every motion for discovery filed by defendant will constitute delay occasioned by him. (People v. Nunnery (1973), 54 Ill.2d 372, 297 N.E.2d 129; People v. Donalson, supra.) In the instant case, the defendant's motion for discovery was made on October 24, 1974 and the State complied with the same on October 28, 1974. While defendant's motion did not cause delay in trial, it is interesting to note that defense counsel did not comply with the...