People v. Reed

• Decision Date: 29 June 1984
• Docket Number: No. 4-83-0789,4-83-0789
• Citation: 125 Ill.App.3d 319,465 N.E.2d 1040,80 Ill.Dec. 694
• Parties: , 80 Ill.Dec. 694 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony REED, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1040

465 N.E.2d 1040

125 Ill.App.3d 319, 80 Ill.Dec. 694

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony REED, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-83-0789.

Appellate Court of Illinois Fourth District.

June 29, 1984.

Daniel D. Yuhas, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Springfield, Diana N. Cherry, Asst. State Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.

J. William Roberts, State's Atty., Robert J. Biderman, Deputy Director, State's Attys. Appellate Service Com'n, David E. Mannchen, Staff Atty., Springfield, for plaintiff-appellee.

GREEN, Justice:

After a trial by jury in the circuit court of Sangamon County, defendant, Anthony Reed, was convicted on October 13, 1983, of having committed the offenses of armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 18-2) and attempt murder (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, pars. 8-4, 9-1) on August 1, 1983. On November 18, 1983, the court sentenced him to a single sentence of 6 years' imprisonment with credit for 93 days already served. At the time of the alleged offenses, defendant was 15 years of age. On appeal he contends that section 2-7(6)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 37, par. 702-7(6)(a)) is unconstitutional. This section required that, because he was charged with armed robbery, defendant be prosecuted in a criminal proceeding rather than under the Juvenile Court Act as would ordinarily be the case with one his age. He also maintains that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior consistent statements by two prosecution witnesses. We affirm.

The contention that the trial court had erred in overruling defense objection to the admission of the prior consistent statements was not raised specifically in defendant's post-trial motion. That motion did state that because of the lack of a transcript, the defendant was claiming "as error each and every error, plain or otherwise shown of record." We have held that such a catchall statement lacks the specificity required to preserve for review any error that is not plain error. (People v. Rogers (1975), 32 Ill.App.3d 788, 336 N.E.2d 784.) Regardless of whether these statements were admissible to rebut the defense contention that the testimony of the witnesses was of recent fabrication, the statements had other probative value. Defense counsel had cross-examined these witnesses concerning portions of their statements. Presentation of the statements in their entirety helped to provide the context for that about which they had been cross-examined. (See United States v. Weinbren (2d Cir.1941), 121 F.2d 826; Biegajski v. State (Tex.Crim.App.1983), 653 S.W.2d 624; McCormick, Evidence § 56, at 130 (2d ed. 1972).) Under the circumstances, we do not find plain error to have occurred. Defendant has waived the issue.

As the only remaining issue concerns the constitutionality of legislation, we need not discuss the facts of the case. The State asserts that the constitutional question has also been waived because it was not properly raised below. (People v. Amerman (1971), 50 Ill.2d 196, 279 N.E.2d 353.) We need not decide whether it was properly raised because we hold the statute to be constitutional.

Section 2-7(6)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act states:

"The definition of delinquent minor under * * * this Act shall not apply to any minor who at the time of an offense was at least 15 years of age and who is charged with murder, rape, deviate sexual assault or armed robbery when the armed robbery was committed with a firearm. These charges and all the other charges arising out of the same incident shall be prosecuted pursuant to the Criminal Code of 1961, as amended."

But for the existence of the above legislation, section 2-7 would have prohibited the State from charging defendant in a criminal proceeding with armed robbery and attempt murder without obtaining the permission of a "Juvenile Judge, designated by the Chief Judge of the Circuit to hear and determine" such motions to prosecute a minor under the criminal laws. Absent the existence of section 2-7(6)(a) and absent permission by the court for the State to proceed with a criminal prosecution, the State would have been limited to a proceeding under the Juvenile Court Act. If section 2-7(6) is valid, the State was limited to prosecuting defendant as a criminal. Defendant maintains that section 2-7(6)(a) is invalid because it deprived him of procedural and substantive due process and equal protection of the laws.

Defendant's assertion of the failure of the legislature to provide procedural due process is based on the cases of Kent v. United States (1966), 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84, and Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287.

At issue in Kent was a District of Columbia statute which provided that juveniles 16 years of age or older charged with an offense which, if committed by an adult, would subject the offender to a possible sentence of death or life imprisonment, could be tried as adults if the juvenile court judge "after full investigation" waived the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. (383 U.S. 541, 547, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 1050, 16 L.Ed.2d 84, 90.) The court held that in view of the statutory language pertaining to a " 'full investigation,' " and the great disparity in the range of possible sanctions which may be imposed upon one tried as a juvenile as opposed to as an adult, the constitutional principles of due process and right to assistance of counsel required that such a minor be accorded a hearing subject to certain procedural safeguards, including the right to be represented by counsel, before he could be tried as an adult. 383 U.S. 541, 558, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 1055, 16 L.Ed.2d 84, 95.

The Goldberg court simply held that since welfare benefits are an important right and recipients of such benefits often have a " 'brutal need' " therefor, recipients of welfare benefits must be accorded a pre-termination hearing before benefits may be terminated. 397 U.S. 254, 261, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1017, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 295.

Unlike the statute in Kent, section 2-7(6)(a) is absolute in its requirement that a minor 15 years of age or older charged with one of the listed offenses be prosecuted as a criminal, rather than under the provisions of the Juvenile Court Act. There is no decision for the court to make, and thus procedural process is not involved. (See People v. Bombacino (1972), 51 Ill.2d 17, 280 N.E.2d 697.) As in all decisions regarding the charges to make against an accused, the prosecutor has discretion. To require a hearing before that decision is made would infringe upon the prosecutorial discretion which the State's Attorney has as a prerogative of the executive branch of the government. United States v. Bland (D.C.Cir.1972), 472 F.2d 1329.

The heart of this case concerns the related questions of whether section 2-7(6)(a) deprived defendant of substantive due process or equal protection. The section requires criminal prosecution for certain minors who are charged with the offenses of murder, rape, deviate sexual assault, and armed robbery committed with a firearm. All of the above are Class X felonies. The statute does not require criminal prosecution for the Class X felonies of attempt murder (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 8-4(c)), heinous battery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 12-4.1), aggravated kidnapping for ransom (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 10-2), and armed violence (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 33A-3).

In support of his substantive due process contention defendant relies on People v. Bradley (1980), 79 Ill.2d 410, 38 Ill.Dec. 575, 403 N.E.2d 1029. That case concerned the validity of the penalty for the possession of a controlled substance when the penalty was greater than that for the delivery of the same substance. The supreme court noted that section 100 of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 56 1/2, par. 1100) indicated an intent to penalize more heavily those engaged in the traffic of the substances than the occasional user or petty distributor. The court concluded that the question of whether the legislation offended substantive due process depended on " 'whether the statute [was] reasonably designed to remedy * * * evils which the legislature has determined to be a threat to the public health, safety and general welfare.' " 79 Ill.2d 410, 417, 38 Ill.Dec. 575, 403 N.E.2d 1029, 1032.

Defendant maintains that equal protection is violated because there is no rational basis to distinguish between the Class X offenses listed in section 2-7(6)(a) which require criminal prosecution and the other Class X offenses previously mentioned which do not require criminal prosecution for minors. Defendant cites Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942), 316 U.S. 535...