People v. Richards
| Decision Date | 15 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 52167,52167 |
| Citation | 410 N.E.2d 833,81 Ill.2d 454,43 Ill.Dec. 700 |
| Parties | , 43 Ill.Dec. 700 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Kenneth J. RICHARDS, Appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago and Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Chicago , for the People.
James J. Doherty, Public Defender, Chicago (John McNamara and Suzanne M. Xinos, Asst. Public Defenders, Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.
After a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County Kenneth Richards, on December 14, 1976, was found guilty of aggravated battery for the beating and stabbing of Denise Richards, his sister-in-law, and was sentenced to a term of 2 to 10 years. The defendant appealed, and among the several issues he raised was the claim that his right to a speedy trial was violated when the State failed to bring him to trial within 120 days as provided in section 103-5(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 38, par. 103-5(a)). The appellate court reversed the conviction on the ground that the trial court had abused discretion by twice extending the trial date beyond the statutory term of 120 days. (71 Ill.App.3d 581, 28 Ill.Dec. 104, 390 N.E.2d 86.) We granted the People's petition for leave to appeal. 73 Ill.2d R. 315. The record shows that the charged crimes took place at the home of the defendant's sister-in-law on December 18, 1975. He was arrested two days later and confined in the Cook County jail until May of 1976, when he posted bond. On June 3, when the defendant failed to appear at a scheduled court proceeding, his bond was forfeited and a warrant for his arrest was issued. He was again taken into custody on July 24. Between July 24 and December 8, when the defendant was brought to trial, the court granted four continuances. Two were on the prosecutor's motions, one on September 8 and the other on October 13, and the other two were entered on the court's motion. None of the delays during this period were attributable to the defendant. The case had been set for trial on November 17, but on November 4 the People moved for an immediate trial or, in the alternative, for a continuance beyond the 120-day term which would expire on November 19. The ground was that Denise Richards, the complaining witness, would be unable to attend the trial on November 17 because she was to take part in a two-week job-training session in Wisconsin. The session would commence on November 7 and would be followed by a two-week orientation program in River Forest. The prosecutor also informed the court that both sides were ready for trial that day should the court deny the motion for a continuance. The court at first refused a continuance, but reconsidered when the witness stated that she would lose her job if compelled to attend the trial on November 17. The court then allowed the motion and continued the case to December 7 over the defendant's objection and demand for trial.
When the case was called on the morning of December 7 Mrs. Richards failed to appear, and though both sides stated their readiness to proceed to trial despite her absence the case was held over by the court to the following morning. The witness arrived that afternoon, i. e., on December 7, claiming that car failure had delayed her. The trial began on December 8 and ended on December 14, when the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
The prosecution had vexing difficulties in securing the cooperation of the victim. Denise Richards, at the preliminary hearing in February 1976, testified that the defendant had punched her, stabbed her in the back and forearm with a knife, and kicked her when she fell to the floor. At trial she professed to have no memory of the events of the day on which the crimes were committed, save that the defendant had visited her apartment. When she testified, too, that she had no memory of her testimony at the preliminary hearing, the court made her a court's witness on the prosecutor's motion.
The question for us is whether the trial court abused discretion in allowing the People's motion for a continuance, which resulted in the defendant's trial being delayed beyond the 120-day term. The allowance of a motion of the prosecution for an extension of the 120-day period is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion its determination will not be disturbed. People v. Arndt (1972), 50 Ill.2d 390, 393, 280 N.E.2d 230.
The statute on which the trial court based its allowance of the People's motion for continuance provides:
"If the court determines that the State has exercised without success due diligence to obtain evidence material to the case and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence may be obtained at a later day the court may continue the cause on application of the State for not more than an additional 60 days." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 38, par. 103-5(c).)
The People argue that the totality of circumstances does not warrant a conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion. Citing People v. Robinson (1976), 44 Ill.App.3d 447, 3 Ill.Dec. 43, 358 N.E.2d 43, they contend that the defendant had no statutory or other right to be tried before the 120-day term expired, that is, he had no right to have gone to trial on November 4, which was more than two weeks before the statutory period would have run. They further argue that the prosecution diligently moved for a continuance when it learned that the witness would be out of town on November 17, the date for trial, and that had it waited until Mrs. Richards had already left for Wisconsin she clearly would have been unavailable for purposes of testifying and under the statute a continuance beyond the term would have been proper.
The right to a speedy trial found in the constitutions of the United States (U.S.Const., Amend. VI) and of Illinois (Ill.Const.1970, art. I, sec. 8) is implemented through section 103-5(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, par. 103-5(a)). Subsection (a) in part provides:
"(a) Every person in custody in this State for an alleged offense shall be tried by the court having jurisdiction within 120 days from the date he was taken into custody unless delay is occasioned by the defendant * * *."
If an accused who is in custody is brought to trial before the expiration of the 120-day term he is ordinarily precluded from raising on appeal the issue of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. (People v. Nowak (1970), 45 Ill.2d 158, 258 N.E.2d 313; People v. Baskin (1967), 38 Ill.2d 141, 230 N.E.2d 208.) And though the statutory period is not coextensive with this right (People v. Arndt (1972), 50 Ill.2d 390, 280 N.E.2d 230; People v. Love (1968), 39 Ill.2d 436, 235 N.E.2d 819), if an accused is not brought to trial within the 120-day term and he has not occasioned any delay in trial, he is entitled to a dismissal of the charges (People v. Love (196...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Exson
......725 ILCS 5/103-5(c) (West 2004). The decision to extend the speedy trial period beyond 120 days lies within the discretion of the trial court, and we will not disturb its determination absent a clear abuse of discretion. People v. Richards, 81 Ill.2d 454, 458, 43 Ill.Dec. 700, 410 N.E.2d 833 (1980). . I. Forfeiture of the Issue . The State contends defendant forfeited his right to assert a speedy trial claim because he failed to raise the issue in his post-trial motion. See People v. Enoch, 122 ......
-
People v. Edwards
......King (1977), 66 Ill.2d 551, 557, 6 Ill.Dec. 891, 363 N.E.2d 838, cert. denied (1977), 434 U.S. 894, 98 S.Ct. 273, 54 L.Ed.2d 181), and a trial court should deny continuances sought by the State where a defendant's right to a speedy trial will be improperly obstructed (People v. Richards (1980), 81 Ill.2d 454, 459-61, 43 Ill.Dec. 700, 410 N.E.2d 833), neither of these circumstances was the situation obtaining here. Further, the State had announced its intention to try the three defendants together. No motion was made or ruled upon by the trial court for severance and the other ......
-
People v. Winfield
......38, par. 103-5(c).) Thus, the decision whether to grant a continuance has been placed within the discretion of the trial court, and its determination will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. People v. Richards (1980), 81 Ill.2d 454, 43 Ill.Dec. 700, 410 N.E.2d 833. . In the instant case, once it became apparent 10 days before expiration of the 120-day period that a material witness could not be located, officers visited her last known address, contacted several of her acquaintances, left ......
-
People v. Wigman
...or contributed to the delays." People v. Staten, 159 Ill.2d 419, 426, 203 Ill.Dec. 230, 639 N.E.2d 550 (1994) (citing People v. Richards, 81 Ill.2d 454, 459, 43 Ill.Dec. 700, 410 N.E.2d 833 (1980) ). The procedural vehicle for raising a claimed violation of the statutory right to a speedy t......