People v. Verstat
| Decision Date | 26 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | 81-1023,81-1018,81-1015,Nos. 81-919,81-1013,81-1016,81-1014,82-1 and 82-26,81-1017,81-975,s. 81-919 |
| Citation | 112 Ill.App.3d 90,444 N.E.2d 1374,67 Ill.Dec. 691 |
| Parties | , 67 Ill.Dec. 691 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary VERSTAT, David W. Ek, Randy Bibbs, Kenneth Goral, Michael J. Moore, Wesley A. Plohr, Charles M. Sitkowski, Joseph Strickland, Dennis C. Roggelin, Laura Foster, and Paul L. Williams, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
J. Michael Fitzsimmons, State's Atty., Wheaton, Barbara A. Preiner, Asst. State's Atty., for plaintiff-appellant.
Joseph E. Voelkl, Joseph Moschetti, Lisle, John T. Perry, Wheaton, for defendants-appellees.
The State appeals from the judgments of "acquittal" of 11 defendants who were charged separately with various misdemeanor and traffic violations in the court below and whose cases were consolidated on appeal by this court. Since each case involves a similar though not identical procedural history, we briefly set out the relevant facts in the record in each of the 11 cases.
Appeal No. 81-919. The defendant, Mary Verstat, was charged by complaint with unlawful sale of alcoholic liquor to a minor (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 43, par. 131). After arraignment, the case was set for trial on September 28, 1981, and then continued to October 28, 1981, after the court granted a continuance requested by the State upon its affidavit which represented that a material witness, Officer Panek, would be "away on leave." On October 28, 1981, the defendant and her attorney appeared for the scheduled jury trial; the State stipulated that the court enter an order to suppress any statements Verstat made on the way to the police station or while in custody; the State then orally requested a continuance because its main witness, who was also charged with an offense, would not testify until his case was disposed of; the State requested a 4-week continuance which the defendant opposed; the trial judge, the Honorable C. Andrew Hayton, stated there were insufficient grounds for a continuance and denied the continuance; the State then moved to nolle pros which was denied by the trial court after the State indicated it might refile the case; the trial court then swore in the defendant, asked her her name and address, and whether she committed the offense; upon her denial that she committed the offense, the trial court found her not guilty.
Appeal No. 81-975. The defendant, David W. Ek, was charged by complaint with battery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 12-3(a)(1)). He failed to appear on August 19, 1981, and his bond was ordered forfeited. On September 23, 1981, defendant appeared and the case was set for a bench trial on November 17, 1981. The defendant appeared pro se on November 17, 1981, ready for trial; the State orally moved for a continuance stating only that its witnesses were not present; the trial judge, the Honorable C. Andrew Hayton, denied the motion for continuance; the State then moved to nolle pros which was also denied even though the State indicated it would not refile; the trial court then swore in the defendant, asked him his name and address, and whether he committed the offense; upon his denial that he committed the offense, the court found him not guilty.
Appeal No. 81-1017. The defendant, Charles M. Sitkowski, was charged by a uniform citation and complaint ticket with driving while license suspended (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 95 1/2, par. 6-303). Defendant failed to appear, and an arrest warrant was issued. After his arrest on July 13, 1981, the case was continued to August 11, 1981, then continued to October 6, 1981, then reset for October 20, 1981, for the setting of a trial date, which was thereafter set for November 23, 1981. It appears that the State sought one of these continuances. On November 23, 1981, defendant appeared with an attorney who filed his appearance instanter and requested a continuance; the State indicated it was not prepared to proceed and said it "would have to nolle pros "; the court asked, "you are not making a motion?"; the State then joined defendant in moving for a continuance; the trial judge, the Honorable C. Andrew Hayton, denied the continuance, asked the State if it intended to refile, and denied its motion to nolle pros when the prosecutor responded he could not then determine if he would refile; the trial court then swore in the defendant and asked him his name and address; the trial court then found the defendant not guilty.
Appeal No. 81-1013. The defendant, Randy Bibbs, was charged by three uniform citation and complaint tickets with improper backing (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1402), no valid registration (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 95 1/2, par. 3-701), and driving while license suspended (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 95 1/2, par. 6-303). After arraignment on October 22, 1981, the case was set for a bench trial on November 24, 1981. On that date defendant and his attorney, the public defender, appeared ready for trial; the State requested a continuance stating that an officer was notified but had not appeared; the trial judge, the Honorable C. Andrew Hayton, denied the motion for continuance; the State then moved to nolle pros which the court also denied; the court then swore in the defendant, asked him his name and address, and asked the State if it wished to ask any questions; the prosecutor then asked if defendant was driving an automobile on the date charged in the tickets; the trial court sustained an objection by defendant's counsel to the question; the court then found defendant not guilty.
Appeal No. 81-1015. The defendant, Michael J. Moore, was charged by complaint with assault (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 12-1(a)). The defendant failed to appear for arraignment and was arrested. Thereafter the case was set for a bench trial on November 24, 1981. On that date the defendant appeared pro se for trial; the State requested a continuance and the prosecutor indicated she didn't know whether the witness was notified; the trial judge, the Honorable C. Andrew Hayton, denied the motion for continuance; the prosecutor moved to nolle pros which was denied; the court swore in the defendant, asked him his name and address, and asked the State if it had any questions; the prosecutor asked no questions and the trial court found the defendant not guilty.
Appeal No. 81-1014. The defendant, Kenneth Goral, was charged by complaint with theft (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 16-1(e)(1)) not exceeding $150. The case was continued once on defendant's motion and thereafter set for a bench trial on November 24, 1981. On that date the defendant appeared pro se for trial; the State moved to nolle pros stating its witnesses were not there; the trial judge, the Honorable C. Andrew Hayton, denied the motion stating the motion to nolle pros was an attempt to circumvent his anticipated denial of a motion for continuance; the trial court swore in the defendant, asked him his name and address, and asked the prosecutor if she had any questions; the prosecutor objected to the proceedings being carried on and declined to ask any questions; the trial court found the defendant not guilty and further stated that this was a continuing course of conduct by the State's Attorneys office of DuPage County and that he had a right to control his court call.
Appeal No. 81-1018. The defendant, Joseph Strickland, was charged by three uniform traffic citation and complaint tickets with improper lane usage (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-708), illegal transportation of alcoholic liquor (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-502), and driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-501(a)). The cases were set for a bench trial on September 29, 1981. The State filed its affidavit requesting a continuance alleging therein that the state trooper would be on vacation on September 29. The cases were continued to November 24, 1981. On that date the defendant and his attorney appeared ready for trial; the prosecutor stated its witnesses were not present and he was not sure whether they were notified; the trial judge, the Honorable C. Andrew Hayton, stated he was denying the motion for continuance which, in fact had not been requested; the prosecutor, instead, moved to nolle pros which was denied by the court who stated that the nolle pros was an attempt to circumvent his anticipated denial of a motion for continuance; the trial court swore in the defendant, asked him his name and address, and asked the prosecutor if he had any questions; the prosecutor objected to the proceedings and asked no questions; the trial court then found the defendant not guilty.
Appeal No. 81-1023. The defendant, Dennis C. Roggelin, was charged by complaint with criminal damage to property (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 21-1(a)), resisting a peace officer (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 31-1), and criminal trespass to land (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 21-3(a)). On the date set for trial, November 24, 1981, the defendant appeared pro se ready for trial; the prosecutor indicated she had the same problem as in the other cases that the witnesses had not appeared and she could not say whether they were notified; the prosecutor then moved to nolle pros; the trial judge, the Honorable C. Andrew Hayton, denied the motion noting this had occurred in over half of the cases on the call that morning; the trial court then swore in the defendant, asked him his name and address, and then found him not guilty.
Appeal No. 81-1016. The defendant, Wesley A. Plohr, was charged by complaint with disorderly conduct (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 26-1(a)(1)). The defendant failed to appear on more than one occasion each of which led to a bond forfeiture which was later vacated. Thereafter the case was set for trial for October 23, 1981. The State was granted a continuance from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gonzalez v. Justices of Municipal Court
...of not guilty without taking any testimony); Deems, 43 Ill.Dec. 8, 410 N.E.2d at 10-11 (similar); People v. Verstat, 112 Ill.App.3d 90, 67 Ill.Dec. 691, 444 N.E.2d 1374, 1380 (1983) (deciding that acquittals amounted to appealable dismissals when the trial judge denied the prosecution's req......
-
People v. Aleman
...784 F.2d 78 (2nd Cir.1986); People v. Rudi, 103 Ill.2d 216, 82 Ill.Dec. 936, 469 N.E.2d 580 (1984); People v. Verstat, 112 Ill.App.3d 90, 67 Ill.Dec. 691, 444 N.E.2d 1374 (1983); People v. Edwards, 97 Ill.App.3d 407, 52 Ill.Dec. 908, 422 N.E.2d 1117 (1981). The second relevant exception to ......
-
People v. Daniels
...130 Ill.Dec. 321, 537 N.E.2d 388 (1989). A motion to nol-pros is comparable to a motion to dismiss. People v. Verstat, 112 Ill.App.3d 90, 103, 67 Ill.Dec. 691, 444 N.E.2d 1374 (1983). "`A nolle prosequi is not a final disposition of the case, and will not bar another prosecution for the sam......
-
C.T., In Interest of, 82-1722
...to trial and apparent "acquittal" (People v. Deems (1980), 81 Ill.2d 384, 43 Ill.Dec. 8, 410 N.E.2d 8; People v. Verstat (1983), 112 Ill.App.3d 90, 67 Ill.Dec. 691, 444 N.E.2d 1374; People v. Edwards (1981), 97 Ill.App.3d 407, 52 Ill.Dec. 908, 422 N.E.2d 1117), or dismisses the charges for ......
-
The Elected Servant: Limiting Judicial Overview of State Prosecutors' Nolle Prosequi Power to Corruption and Infringement on Defendants' Rights.
...v. Richardson, 623 P.2d 1317, 1323 (Kan. 1981) (stressing power to nolle prosequi cases qualified, not absolute); People v. Verstat, 444 N.E.2d 1374, 1385 (111. App. Ct. 1983) (stating requirement to enter requested nolle prosequi absent clear abuse of discretion by prosecutor); Weams, 208 ......