Docket No. 108947.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v.

CARMECITA WILLIAMS, Appellee.

Opinion filed November 18, 2010.

CHIEF JUSTICE KILBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court,

with opinion.

Justices Freeman, Thomas, Garman, Karmeier, Burke, and Theis

concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

Defendant Carmecita Williams was convicted of official

misconduct (720 ILCS 5/33–3(b) (West 1998)), and sentenced to 24

months’ probation. The appellate court reversed defendant’s

conviction and entered a judgment of acquittal, concluding that the

evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction. 393 Ill. App. 3d

77. We allowed the State’s petition for leave to appeal (210 Ill. 2d R.

315(a)). For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the

appellate court.
-2-

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged by indictment in the circuit court of Cook

County with criminal drug conspiracy and official misconduct. The

official misconduct count alleged that defendant was a public

employee of the Village of Glenwood and “in her official capacity as

police dispatcher knowingly performed an act which she knew she is

forbidden by law to perform, to wit: she notified Greg Stroud about

police activity near his residence in South Holland, Illinois, in order to

facilitate illegal drug-dealing by Greg Stroud.”

At defendant’s bench trial, Alex DiMare testified that he is a

retired deputy chief of the Glenwood police department. Defendant

was hired as a radio dispatcher in October 1997. As a dispatcher,

defendant was required to relay to police officers internal department

information and information reported by the public.

DiMare identified an exhibit as the “Glenwood Police Department

rules and regulations” covering disclosure of confidential information.

DiMare noted that the exhibit also contained “a small section on

disciplinary action.” He testified that when defendant was hired, she

was informed orally and in writing about the confidentiality rules and

regulations. DiMare further testified that the rules and regulations

were “adopted in 1985” and “were in effect” when he left the

department on June 28, 2000.

DiMare identified a time card indicating defendant was at work on

July 12, 1998. The State then played tapes of three telephone calls

defendant made to Greg Stroud on that date. The first call was placed

from a Glenwood police department line while defendant was on duty

as a dispatcher. The transcript of that call reflects the following

conversation:

“DEFENDANT: Keep your scan[n]er on there is some

stuff going on in your area[.] * * *

MR. STROUD: What up?

DEFENDANT: OK I’m at work[.]

MR. STROUD: What do you hear[?]

DEFENDANT: I’m at work[.]

MR. STROUD: OK[.]”

The second call was placed from the same Glenwood police
-3-

department line 20 minutes later. The transcript of the second call

states in pertinent part:

“DEFENDANT: You have some eyes staged at the

college[.]

* * *

MR. STROUD: What!–A burglary or something?

DEFENDANT: Huh!–No–Some eyes[.] You know what

I’m saying?

MR. STROUD: Yeah[.]

* * *

DEFENDANT: Don’t worry about that other stuff you’re

hearing about the barricaded subject that’s not what I’m

talking about[.]

MR. STROUD: Yeah–Yeah when you get off call me[.]

DEFENDANT: I sure will[.]”

Approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes later, the third call was

placed from defendant’s home telephone. The transcript of that call

states in pertinent part:

“DEFENDANT: Uh–I don’t know exactly what–what’s

going on–It ain’t like I really heard nothing[.] It’s like OK this

guy over there on 160 something and South Park he done

barricade his house–Barricade his self in the house and we had

to send a SERT team over there so we– 

* * *

And uh–We send a SERT team in the area we have to let

any agents know in the area that we’re coming through and

there’ll be a lot of radio traffic so either they can change

frequencies or whatever and I know I had to send it via

computer[.]

MR. STROUD: Alright[.]

DEFENDANT: I had to send it over to they use posts like

post one–post two for locations[.]

MR. STROUD: Alright[.]

DEFENDANT: I just so happen to know where post 20

is and that’s South Suburban College[.]
-4-

MR. STROUD: Uh huh[.]

DEFENDANT: So I’m not sure what agency you know if

there’s FBI–DEA–or ATF or whatever but we just know

there’s agents in the area–Eh you know and they at South

Suburban cause that’s where I had to send the message to[.]

* * *

MR. STROUD: Huh?–Would it have to be one of them

ATF or FBI?

DEFENDANT: Yeah–It’s one of them it’s it’s either

ATF[,] FBI or DEA cause those are the only ones that let us

know where they at[.]

* * *

MR. STROUD: OK–(Unintelligible) See what that’s about

let me know[.]

DEFENDANT: Yeah basically they probably won’t I

probably won’t hear nothing but if I do I’ll let you know[.]”

DiMare identified defendant’s voice on the tapes. He testified that

on the date the calls were made, the South Suburban Emergency

Response Team (SERT) was assisting with a barricaded person and

the dispatcher was required to notify local agencies of that activity.

DiMare testified that the information defendant gave to Stroud was

confidential under the police department’s rules and regulations.

After the State rested, the trial court granted defendant’s motion

for a directed finding on the criminal drug conspiracy count.

Defendant then testified that Greg Stroud is the father of her 14-yearold son. She admitted making the three calls, but testified that she did

not know Stroud was dealing narcotics. She told Stroud that police

officers were at South Suburban College because it was close to his

house and she wanted to get his reaction. She hoped Stroud “would

let [her] know if there was anything suspicious going on in his house.”

Oncross-examination, defendant acknowledged that she was informed

about the rules and regulations prohibiting disclosure of confidential

information. She claimed, however, that she did not disclose any

confidential information, but fabricated the information to provoke a

response from Stroud.

The trial court found defendant guilty of official misconduct. She
-5-

was later sentenced to 24 months’ probation with conditions including

the performance of 250 hours of community service.

On appeal, defendant contended the State failed to establish that

her disclosure of information violated a “law” as required to prove the

offense of official misconduct. The State responded that defendant

was proven guilty of official misconduct because she violated the

Glenwood police department rules and regulations prohibiting

disclosure of confidential information.

Following oral argument, the appellate court ordered the parties

to provide authority on whether the Glenwood police department

rules and regulations are “laws” within the meaning of the official

misconduct statute. The State attached to its supplemental brief a

copy of the Glenwood Village ordinances covering the police

department. The State also attached a copy of the minutes of a Village

board of trustees meeting held November 19, 1985, purporting to

show that the Board “approve[d] the new Glenwood Police

department’s Policy and Procedures package, as presented by Trustee

Passaglia.”

The appellate court determined that the Glenwood police

department rules and regulations do not rise to the level of a “law”

under the official misconduct statute. Further, even if the rules and

regulations had been codified by the Village as ordinances, they are

not “laws” because only the legislature can promulgate a law. The

evidence that defendant violated those rules was, therefore,

insufficient to establish a violation of the official misconduct statute.

The appellate court also found that the department’s rules and

regulations did not apply to defendant because she was not a

“member” of the department as defined by the Glenwood Municipal

Code. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed defendant’s

conviction and entered a judgment of acquittal because the evidence

was insufficient to prove her guilty of official misconduct. 393 Ill.

App. 3d 77.

Justice Murphy dissented, asserting that the rules and regulations

were “approved and codified as an ordinance” by the Village of

Glenwood, and they should be considered laws within the meaning of

the official misconduct statute. The evidence showed that the

confidentiality rules applied to defendant as a dispatcher for the police

department. Justice Murphy concluded that “[w]hen a police
-6-

dispatcher alerts a drug dealer of potential police activity aimed at

him, it has to be official misconduct. Put quite simply, if this case is

not an example of official misconduct, then I do not know what is.”

393 Ill. App. 3d at 94 (Murphy, J., dissenting).

II. ANALYSIS

On appeal to this court, the State contends that the Glenwood

police department rules and regulations are “laws” within the meaning

of the official misconduct statute because they were enacted by the

municipality as ordinances. The rules have the force of law as

administrative rules and regulations. By violating the confidentiality

rules of the Glenwood police department, defendant knowingly

performed an act that she knew was prohibited by law. Additionally,

the appellate court erred in concluding that the confidentiality rules do

not apply to defendant. The State, therefore, maintains that defendant

was properly convicted of official misconduct.

Defendant responds that the State failed to present competent

evidence establishing that the Glenwood police department rules were

enacted as municipal ordinances. The confidentiality rules are,

therefore, only part of the police department’s employment manual.

The violation of employment rules cannot be considered performing

an act “forbidden by law” as required to prove the offense of official

misconduct. The State’s argument would allow an official misconduct

conviction to be based on a public employee’s violation of a minor or

trivial employment rule. Defendant further argues that the term “law”

should be construed narrowly to include only state statutes and the

Illinois Constitution. Thus, even if the confidentiality rules had been

enacted by the municipality, the ordinance would not fit within the

meaning of a “law” under the official misconduct statute.

Defendant further maintains that the appellate court properly

found the confidentiality rules do not apply to her as a civilian

employee. Finally, if her violation of the confidentiality rules may

serve as a basis for a conviction, defendant contends the official

misconduct statute violates her constitutional right to due process.

When assessing whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a

conviction, the reviewing court’s inquiry is “ ‘whether, after viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any
-7-

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) People v.

Bush, 214 Ill. 2d 318, 326 (2005), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443

U.S. 307, 318-19, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 573, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2788-89

(1979). Before considering the sufficiency of the evidence, we must

first determine whether the confidentiality rules are “laws” within the

meaning of the official misconduct statute. The parties dispute

whether the confidentiality rules are “laws” and, consequently,

whether defendant’s violations of those rules are acts “forbidden by

law” under the statute.

The construction of the term “law” presents an issue of statutory

interpretation subject to de novo review. People v. Howard, 228 Ill.

2d 428, 432 (2008). The fundamental objective of statutory

construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent,

presuming it did not intend to cause absurd, inconvenient, or unjust

results. People v. Christopherson, 231 Ill. 2d 449, 454 (2008). The

language of a statute, given its plain and ordinary meaning, is the best

indication of legislative intent. People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32, 44

(2009). Criminal statutes are construed strictly in favor of the accused.

People v. Grever, 222 Ill. 2d 321, 338 (2006).

Section 33–3(b) of the Criminal Code of 1961 provides that a

public employee commits misconduct when, in the public employee’s

official capacity, he knowingly performs an act he knows is forbidden

by law. 720 ILCS 5/33–3(b) (West 1998). The official misconduct

statute was intended to prevent public officers and employees from

using an official position in the commission of an offense. Fellhauer

v. City of Geneva, 142 Ill. 2d 495, 506 (1991). The statute “requires

that the charging instrument ‘specify the “law” allegedly violated by

the officer.” Grever, 222 Ill. 2d at 335, quoting Fellhauer, 142 Ill. 2d

at 506.

In Fellhauer, this court asserted that the term “law” in the official

misconduct statute includes a civil or penal statute, a supreme court

rule, administrative rules or regulations, or a tenet of a professional

code. Fellhauer, 142 Ill. 2d at 506 (citing People v. Bassett, 169 Ill.

App. 3d 232, 235 (1988), and People v. Weber, 133 Ill. App. 3d 686,

690-91 (1985)). We have since repeated that conclusion, holding an

indictment charging official misconduct “must, at a minimum, allege

facts that would show defendant violated an identifiable statute, rule,
-8-

regulation, or tenet of a professional code.” Grever, 222 Ill. 2d at 337.

Those statements on the sources of law are not intended to be

exhaustive, however, as shown by our subsequent holding that a

violation of the Illinois Constitution may serve as a predicate unlawful

act for official misconduct. Howard, 228 Ill. 2d at 439. Thus, a

provision may be a “law” within the meaning of the official

misconduct statute even if it does not fit squarely within one of the

categories we have previously identified.

In determining whether the confidentiality rules at issue are

“laws,” we first consider the State’s argument that they were enacted

as a Village ordinance. At trial, retired deputy police chief Alex

DiMare testified that the rules were “adopted in 1985” and were still

in effect when he left the department in 2000. The State did not offer

any evidence on the drafting of the rules, the process used in enacting

them, or the government body that adopted them. The evidence

presented at trial on this issue was limited to DiMare’s mere statement

that the rules were adopted in 1985. Based on this evidence, we

cannot conclude that the rules were enacted by the Village as an

ordinance.

The appellate court ordered supplemental briefing, allowing the

State an opportunity to submit authority establishing that the

confidentiality rules are “laws.” The State attached to its brief copies

of the Glenwood ordinances governing the police department and

minutes from a board of trustees meeting held in 1985.

The parties dispute whether this court should take judicial notice

of the minutes from the board of trustees meeting. We find it

unnecessary to decide whether the minutes are subject to judicial

notice because, even if we consider them, they do not establish that

the confidentiality rules were enacted as an ordinance. The minutes

only state that the board approved a new “Policy and Procedures

package” presented by one of the trustees. There is no indication of

the contents of the “Policy and Procedures package” or that the

confidentiality rules at issue were part of that package. We note that

the confidentiality rules have been referred to as “Glenwood Police

Department rules and regulations,” not as part of a “Policy and

Procedures package.” Further, the minutes simply state that the

package was “approve[d].” They do not indicate that it was enacted

as a Village ordinance. Thus, even if the minutes showed that the
-9-

confidentiality rules were included in the “Policy and Procedures

package,” those minutes do not establish that the rules were enacted

as an ordinance.

The ordinances submitted by the State include a section entitled

“Promulgation of rules and regulations by chief of police.” That

section states:

“The chief of police may make or prescribe such rules and

regulations as he shall deem advisable. Such rules, when

approved by the village president and board of trustees, shall

be binding on the members of the police department. Such

rules and regulations may cover the conduct of the members,

uniforms and equipment to be worn or carried, hours of

service, vacations, and all other similar matters necessary or

desirable for the better efficiency of the police department.”

The ordinance suggests that the police chief may have

promulgated the confidentiality rules as part of the department rules

and regulations, and that the Village could potentially approve them.

There is no proof, however, that the rules were actually approved by

the Village. As noted, the minutes submitted by the State indicate that

a “Policy and Procedures package” was approved by the board, but

there is no evidence that the confidentiality rules were part of that

package. Even if we could conclude that the confidentiality rules at

issue were part of that package, the board’s approval of the package

would still not establish that the rules were formally enacted as an

ordinance. Additionally, Alex DiMare only testified that the rules were

“adopted in 1985,” without any explanation of the process used or the

person or entity adopting the rules.

We further note that the Illinois Municipal Code provides, “[t]he

municipal clerk shall record, in a book used exclusively for that

purpose, all ordinances passed by the corporate authorities.” 65 ILCS

5/1–2–5 (West 2008). The Municipal Code specifies methods for

proving the contents and passage of ordinances. 65 ILCS 5/1–2–5,

1–2–6 (West 2008). Accordingly, if the confidentiality rules were

passed as an ordinance, the State could have easily proven the

contents and passage of that ordinance. The State did not submit

proof of the contents or passage of any ordinance prohibiting

disclosure of confidential information.
-10-

We conclude that the record does not show the confidentiality

rules were formally passed or enacted by the Village as an ordinance.

The record here only shows that defendant violated rules adopted by

the Glenwood police department on the disclosure of confidential

information. We must, therefore, determine whether those rules

qualify as “laws” within the meaning of the official misconduct statute.

In reviewing the confidentiality rules, we find our appellate court’s

reasoning in People v. Gray, 221 Ill. App. 3d 677 (1991), persuasive.

In that case, the defendant was employed as a janitor by an Illinois

veterans home and became friends with a resident of the home.

Eventually, the resident approached the defendant and offered to

invest $60,000 in his restaurant. After considering the offer for a few

days, the defendant accepted. In exchange for the $60,000, the

defendant assigned his interest in the restaurant building to the

resident in a document drafted by the resident. Gray, 221 Ill. App. 3d

at 679-80.

The parties had a falling out shortly after the restaurant was

opened and the resident filed suit, seeking the return of his $60,000

investment.The State subsequently charged the defendant with official

misconduct alleging that, while acting in his official capacity as a

public employee, he knowingly performed an act that he knew was

forbidden by law, “that law being the Department of Veterans Affairs

Illinois Veterans Home Personal Conduct Rules for Employees, to

wit: having any financial transactions with clients or members.” The

defendant acknowledged that he was aware of the personal conduct

rules and understood he had violated a rule against financial dealings

with residents. Gray, 221 Ill. App. 3d at 680-81. The defendant was

convicted of official misconduct (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par.

33–3(b)) and sentenced to a term of probation. Gray, 221 Ill. App. 3d

at 678.

On appeal, the State argued that the rule of the home was a “law”

under the official misconduct statute because it was “a properly

promulgated administrative rule or regulation.” The appellate court

rejected the State’s argument, holding that the record only

demonstrated “someone in authority at the Home thought this rule to

be desirable, included it in the list of employment rules to be passed

out to all employees, and defendant was given a copy.” Gray, 221 Ill.

App. 3d at 683-84. The evidence showed that the rule was “generated
-11-

by the Home’s administrative staff and applied to no other facility of

the Department of Veterans Affairs.” Gray, 221 Ill. App. 3d at 684.

The appellate court listed several other prohibitions in the home’s

personal conduct rules, including deliberately refusing to obey a

supervisor’s orders, using obscene or abusive language, “[d]isobeying

instructions, procedures and policies, whether through neglect,

procrastination or deliberate disobedience,” and “[d]eliberately

interfering with or delaying the work of other employees.” Gray, 221

Ill. App. 3d at 684. The appellate court recognized that the rules

prohibited “a lot of bad things an employee might do or say” and a

violation of those rules may justify suspension without pay or

immediate discharge. Gray, 221 Ill. App. 3d at 685. The legislature

could not have intended, though, to deem that behavior a felony when

it enacted the official misconduct statute. Gray, 221 Ill. App. 3d at

685-86. The appellate court, therefore, held that the official

misconduct statute was not applicable to these facts and reversed the

defendant’s conviction. Gray, 221 Ill. App. 3d at 686.

Similarly, there is no evidence in this case that any formal

legislative process was used in adopting the confidentiality rules. The

evidence does not even establish that the rules were sanctioned or

approved by the Village of Glenwood. The rules were, therefore,

prescribed without any formal enactment or informal approval by a

governing body. We share the Gray court’s concern about construing

the term “law” in the official misconduct statute so broadly that it

includes rules promulgated solely by a person in authority of a

governmental department or the administrative staff.

The confidentiality rules here were apparently promulgated under

the ordinance allowing the police chief to prescribe rules and

regulations covering, among other things, conduct of the members,

uniforms and equipment, hours of service, and vacations. The State’s

argument would allow a felony official misconduct prosecution to be

based on a violation of rules prescribed solely by the police chief on

those matters. We further note that the confidentiality rules introduced

by the State provide, in part, that “[a]llegations, gossip, hearsay,

rumor and anonymous uncorroborated information shall be treated as

confidential.” Although the State did not contend defendant violated

that particular part of the rule, accepting the confidentiality rules as

“law” would allow a felony prosecution to be based on the police
-12-

chief’s rules prohibiting disclosure of gossip, hearsay, or rumor. We

do not believe the legislature intended the term “law” to be given such

a broad construction.

In sum, we conclude that the confidentiality rules here do not rise

to the level of a “law” within the meaning of the official misconduct

statute. The State’s evidence that defendant violated those rules is not

sufficient to show that defendant performed an act “forbidden by law”

as required to sustain a conviction of official misconduct. We must,

therefore, affirm the appellate court’s judgment that the evidence was

insufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction.

When a conviction is reversed based on evidentiary insufficiency,

the double jeopardy clause precludes the State from retrying the

defendant, and the only proper remedy is a judgment of acquittal.

People v. Olivera, 164 Ill. 2d 382, 393 (1995). Given our decision on

this issue, it is unnecessary to address the parties’ other arguments on

the applicability of the confidentiality rules to defendant and the

constitutionality of the official misconduct statute.

As a final matter, we emphasize that our holding should not be

interpreted as an approval of defendant’s conduct. The conduct here

is certainly troublesome and unjustifiable. We hold that defendant did

not commit the offense of official misconduct only because the

confidentiality rules at issue here cannot be construed as “laws” under

the statute. At oral argument, defense counsel asserted defendant may

have been properly charged with other criminal offenses. We do not

express any opinion on that point. We only hold that the

circumstances presented by this case do not establish the offense of

official misconduct.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the appellate court’s

judgment reversing defendant’s conviction and entering a judgment of

acquittal.

Appellate court judgment affirmed.