No. 2-- 05--0582 Fil ed: 12-19-07

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f Ke nd all C o un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppel le e, ) ) Nos. 04--DT--187 v. ) 04--TR--9907 ) RONNELL R. BA

NKS, ) Ho no r ab le ) Robert L. Janes, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEO' MA

LL EY de l i v er ed th e op i ni on of th e c our t: Fo llowing a ben

ch t r ial in t he cir cu it co ur t o f Ke nd all County at which def endant, Ro nnel

l R. Banks, was convi

cted o f dr ivin g under the i nf lue nce of a lc ohol (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11--501(a)(2) (West 2004)) and driv

in g whi le hi s lic ense was suspen

ded (625 ILCS 5/6--303 (West 2004 )), defend ant appeal s. On appeal, defen dant contends that t he ev

ide nce was insu fficie nt t o pr o ve him guilt y beyond a

re aso nable do ubt of d riving while his license w as su spe nded , be cau se t her e wa s no evi dence that h i s l i cense w as a

ctual l y sus pen ded on the date of

the purported of

f en se. Defend ant also contends thatt he fact t hat a video t ape of t he t ra ffi c st op was lost re nder s t he r eco rd insufficientf or appe l l ate review and thereb y de pr ive s h im o f his co ns t it ut io na l r ig ht t o a d ir ec t ap pe al. Fin ally, defend ant as se

rtsth at th e ev i den ce

wa s i n suf f i ci en t to pr ove him guilty of DU I. We re ject defend ant 's
co nt en t io ns a nd affir m. I. BACKG ROUNDNo. 2-- 05--0582

-2-

We sum ma rize the pe

rtinen t fact s. On

Feb ruary 1, 2005 , a b ench

tria l com menced. A verbati m trans cript

of the testim

ony ren dered durin

g trial was not prepared. Instead, for purposes of ap pe al, the parties prepared an agr eed st at ement of fac t s and at t ache d po lice rep or t s pr epa re d by Ser gea nt Te rr y Kli

ngel o f the Yo rk vill

e po lice dep ar t ment and D epu t y John C ollins of t he Ke nd all Cou n ty sheri ff 's departm

ent. The parties i

ndicatedthat the

pol i ce of f i cers testi f i ed con siste n tl y wi th t he ir n ar ra ti v e r ep orts . Addi

ti on al l y , D eputy Mi tch Ha ttan of th e K en dal l Cou n ty sher iff 's dep ar t ment testifi ed si mi la rly to Kl in gel and Colli ns. The f oll owing reci

tation is take n f ro m th e p oli ce

repor ts attachedto th e a

gr ee d s tate

men t of f ac ts. W e n

ote th at a b se n t f rom th e a gr ee d s tate

men t of f ac ts is any indic at io n t hat de fe nd ant obje cted to the hearsay testim ony regardi

ng def endan t's suspen ded li cense, which was admi

tt ed in to evidence in

stead o f a certif

ied dri ver's abstract. Al so abse nt is any best -e vidence objec t ion. Kl in gel related that, at about 11:30 p.m., on Friday , September 17, 2004, he was dis patched to the area of Route 126 and Mi nkler Road. There, he o bse r ve d a r ed Ch ev r o let sp o r t ut ilit y veh icle (SUV), re gi ste

re d to def en da n t, with i ts hazard ligh

ts activated. As K

li ngel approached the veh

ic le , he ob se rved de f en da n t ex i t th e p as se

n ger s i de of th e S UV . K

l i n ge l ob se rved th at def en da n t w as staggerin g as he exi

ted the vehi

cl e. Kl in gel asked def

endan t if he was okay . Defen

dant responded that he was f

in e, butKl in gel noted that defendan

t's speech was "sl urred" and "thi

ck-to ngued." K

li ngel also noticed

that an od or of a n alco holic beve ra ge w as e manat ing fro m defenda nt 's face and mo ut h. Kl in gel ask ed if defe ndant had be en dr inking t hat night and d efenda nt st at ed, in slurr ed s pee ch, that he had. Kl

in gel asked def endan t if he h ad been driv in g. Defe ndan t inf ormed Kl in gel that he had b een dr iving and d rinking, but did no t want to driv e any more, so he pul

le d onto the side of t he r oa d. As Kling el was sp eaki

ng to defenda

nt, he noticed a b eer bott le prot rudin

g from a paper bag that wasNo. 2-- 05--0582

-3-

lyi ng o n t he flo o r o f t he fr o nt pa ss en ge rsid e o f t he ve hic le. Kling el, wh o wa s o ut sid e o f his ju r isd ict io n, ca lled fo ra K en da ll Co un t y sh er iff's de pu t y. Co lli ns report ed

that, upo n arri

vi ng at the scene , Kl

in gel re l ate d th at def en da n t ap pe ar ed to be into xicat ed a nd had admit t ed t hat he had been d rinking al cohol, and K li ngel report ed that he had obse rv ed a bo t t le of bee r in a p ape r ba g und er defend ant 's feet . C ollins relat ed t hat Kl ingel ha d le arned defend ant 's name, and Co lli ns no t ed in his nar ra t ive rep or t t hat defend ant 's "driver's l icense status wa s th

at of su sp en de d a s of 10/ 01 f or [a pre vi ouscon vi cti on of] driv in g under the i

nf lue nce [(625 ILCS 5/] 11--50 1(a)(2 ) [(W est 200 4))]." Co lli ns related t hat , w hen he a ske d de fendant t o r oll do wn t he pa sseng er windo w, defend ant appeared t o ha ve t ro uble do ing so . C ollins op ened t he pas seng er do or for defend ant and no t iced t he odor of a lcoho l coming from

the car. Coll

in s noticed that def

endan t was dish evel ed an d h ad gl as sy, bl oodshot ey

es. Coll in s observed

a b o t t le of

be er i ns i dea p ap er b ag

on th e p as seng er- si

def l oor of the c ar. Co lli

ns related that

defend ant said that he ran out of gas and would need h el p. Coll in s asked defend ant where he was comi ng f rom and def

endan t s t ut t er ed a nd ap pea re d t o be co nfused as he answered. De fen da nt po int ed an d a pp ea r ed t o ha ve t r o ub le fo r mula t ing his answer . D efenda nt stutt ered an d t o ld C o llins t ha t his w ife d id not want h i

m to retur n h om e. De f en da n t told C oll i

n s th at, wh en he arri ve d at home , his wi

f e told hi m to lea ve and he di d so. Co lli ns related f

urther detail s about the encounter, in whi ch def en dan t app ear ed t o be conf use d an d con tradicted h

i m sel f . For ex am pl e, def endan t cl ai med to be he adi ng towa rd Aurora, but he was n

ot headed i

n the di rection toward Aurora when he wa s found b y pol ic e. Ad di t io na lly, defend ant cl ai

me d to have obtain

ed food from a

Port il lo's restaurant, but instead h

ad food wrappedNo. 2-- 05--0582

-4-

in McD ona ld's pa cka ging i n hi s ca r. Defe ndan t also told Coll

in s repeatedly

that he had n

ot been dr ink ing alc o ho l, wh ich co nt r ad ict ed wh at he t o ld K ling el. Co lli ns asked def

endan t t o get o ut o f the ca

rand t o c ome t o t he r ear of his vehicle. Co lli ns sm el le d a strong a lc oholic odor comi ng f rom def endan t. Co ll in s agai n asked def

endan t if he h ad
consum ed an y al coh ol , a n d d ef en da n t re pl i ed th at h e h ad "h ad on e b eer." De f

en da n t re f us ed to take
a f i eld sobri ety

test. Col l i ns then arrested def

endan t. Collins' search of

defen dant's car un

covered four unope ne d bottl es of

be er, t wo op ened bot t les o f beer wit h ver y li t t le beer re maining, and one opened ca n o f be er wit h a sma ll

am oun t of b eer re mai n i n g. D ef en da n t wa s transp orte d to th

e c oun ty jailan d ch ar ged wit h, a mong ot her t hings, DUI and d riving while his license w as su spe nded . T he beer contain ers were pl aced i

nto evide nce as we ll

as a video tap e of

the en cou nte r re cord ed f rom Coll in s' das hboard vi deo camera. Al so atta ch ed to the agreed

sta tem en t of f ac ts was Col l i n s' "L aw Enf orc em en t Sw orn Re por t" (sworn report ). The repo r t co nt ain ed ch ec k b o xe s t o ind ica t e w he t he rde fen da nt su rr en de r ed his dr iver's l i cens e. The

"N o" box w as c heck ed, and C ollins recorded t hat defe ndan t did not surrender his l i cense a t the ti me of the e nc ounter b eca

use his "d ri ver[']s l i cense [was] s

uspe nde d." Dur ingth e en cou

n ter , C oll i n s req ue ste d th at a dep ut y bedi sp atch ed

to de f en da n t' s h om e to
ma ke sure that no vi olen

ce had occurred between

de f en da n t an d h i s wi f e. Ha ttan re sp on de d to t he
ca ll. Hattan learn

ed from defen dant's wi fe that def endan t had come h

ome drunk an

d that she t o ld h im to le ave. A da sh bo ar d v id eo t ap e o f t he en co un t er wit h d ef en da nt wa s d isp laye d to the tr i al cou rt. Acco rd ingt o t he ag re ed s t at ement of facts, the videotape d ispl ays "a port ion of

the even ts test if ie d to by Depu ty C oll i ns and Serg ean

t Kl i nge l ."No. 2-- 05--0582

-5-

Defend ant did n

ot testify at tr ia l. No other evi dence

was off ered on h i s b ehalf . The tria l court noted th at, f

oll owi n g " pr es en

tati on of testi mon y & v i de o," i

t f oun d d ef en da n t gui l ty of b oth charges. For the DUI convi

ction, def endan t was sentenced to a 364-day term of i mprisonm ent, an d fo r t he
con vi cti on of dri vi ng wh il e hi s lic ense wa s suspen

ded, de f en da n t wa s s en ten ce d to a 24 -m on th term of proba tion
. In ad di

ti on , de f en da n t wa s a ss es se d f

i n es an d c ost s to tal

i n g $ 75 0 a

n d r eq ui re d to undergo a l

evel III a l coh ol trea t ment p ro gr am, w hich was mod ifi able base d up on d efenda nt 's evalua t ion. Defe

ndan t's postt rial

motions were deni ed, and d efenda nt t imely

app eals. At s ome p oint wh ile t he appeal

was pendi

ng, the parties di

scovered that the videotape of the tr aff ic stop and arrest was no longer in

the possessi

on of ei ther t he circ uit co ur t clerk , t he St at e's At t or ney, o r t he pu blic def ender. Incl

ude d i n th e re cord on app eal is an affidavit ack now ledging t hat none of those parties h ad or w er e a

b l e to l oca te a copy of th e v i de otap e of

de f en da n t' s traf f i c stop a n d a rre st. II. AN AL YSIS On appeal , defen

dant chal le nges the s uff ic ie ncy of the ev i de nc e of his co nvictio ns o f driving wh ile hi s li

censewas suspen

ded and DUI. Def

endan t also contends that the l oss of the vi deotape of h i s traf f i c stop a n d a rre st m akes th e r ec ord

i n suf f i ci en tl y com pl ete for re view and t her eby

depriv es hi m of h i s ri ght to appe al

his con vi cti on of DUI. A. Suff ic ie ncy of Evi dence to Sustain C onviction of Dri vi ng W hi le His Li cense W

as Suspen ded De fe ndant 's i nit ial a r gu men t o n a pp ea l is t ha t t he ev ide nc e is insu fficie nt t o pr o ve t ha t his li censewas suspen

ded on the date o f the traf fic s to p. Defendant points to a phrase in Collins'
nar ra t ivereport that related that defen dant's "dri ver's li cense s tatus was that of suspen

ded as of 10/01 f or[a previous conviction of] dri vi ng unde r the in fl uence [(625 ILCS 5/]11--50 1(a) (2) [( West 2004) )]." Defend ant co nt ends t hat t his is ambiguo us a nd could m ean that def

endan t's lic ense was dueNo. 2-- 05--0582

-6-

to be su sp en de d O ctob er 1 , ab out two weeksaf ter th e d ateof the traff ic stop at is sue here, or was suspen ded in October 2001, t hree y

ears bef ore t he stop. Defen

dant al so notes t hat

there is no d river 's abstract or o ther

docum en tary evi den ce i n the rec ordto show that defen dant's l ic ense was suspen

ded on Septembe

r 17, 2004, t he date of the stop. However, defenda nt did n ot argue the best-evi

dence
rule or inadmi

ssible h earsa y be l ow or in

this court . Defen

dant concl

udes that the evidence was in suf fi ci ent to suppo rt his c onviction of dri vi ng wh il e his lic ense wa s suspen

ded. We di sagree. Wh en a defe ndan t challe nges the s uff ic ie ncy of the ev ide nce, t he r elevant que st ion fo r t he
re viewing court i s wh

ethe r, aft er viewing t he evidenc e in the light mo st favo ra ble to t he pr os ecu t ion, any ra ti on al trier of f ac t cou l d h av e f oun d th e e ss en ti a l e le me nts of the cri

me to have been

proved beyond a rea sona

bl e doubt. People v . Berrier , 362 Ill . App. 3d 1153, 1169 (2006). Here, t he i ssue is wh ethe r there was sufficient evidenc e in the re co rd t hat defend ant 's license w as su spe nded on t he date of the stop. Oft en, a cir cu it co ur t will no t hav e a co ur t re po rt er pr es ent du ring a t ria l o n a t ra ff ic o r m i sdemean or off en se. People v . Mall

ey , 103 Ill . App. 3d 534, 535 (1982 ). Gi ven Su prem e Court Ru le 323 (21 0 Il

l . 2d R. 3 23) , wh

i ch sets ou t al tern atemeth odsf or ob tai ni ng a re port of proceedin

gs f ort he re cord on

appe al, the p re se

n ce of a c our t repor ter i s n ot n ec es sa ri l y re qui re d i n ord er to en sure that the record o n appeal is suf fi ci ently compl ete for revi ew. The responsi bi li ty f or preservin

g a su fficie nt ly

com pl ete record of t he pr oc eed ings befo re t he t rial co ur t re st s wit h t he de fendant , a s t he appe l l an t. People v . Fernan

dez , 344 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 15 2, 160 ( 2003) ; Malle y , 10 3 I ll. App. 3d at 536. Wh eret he r eco rd on a ppe al is incomplet e, any do ubt s ar ising fro m that incomplet enes s will be construed agai

nst the def

enda n t ( Fe rnandez , 34 4 I ll. A pp . 3d at 16 0) an d e ve ry re as o na ble pre su m ption wil l b e taken i

n f avor of the j udgme

nt bel ow ( Malle

y , 103 Ill . App. 3d at 536 ).No. 2-- 05--0582

-7-

Moreov er, a de fendant canno t agr ee t o a st at ement o f fac t s, fail to obtain a more detail

ed al ternative, and the n a rgue on appeal that t he record is

in suf fi ci ent. See People v . Luke , 253 Ill . App. 3d 136, 140 (1 993). W i th t hese pr inciples in mi

nd, we t ur n t o d efenda nt 's ar gument t hat t he evide nce in t he record
was in suf fi ci ent to show t hat hi s lic ense was suspended o n S ep t emb er 17 , 20 04
. S pe cif ica lly, defend ant contends that the record do es n ot contain direct evi

dence provi

ng that hi s lic ense was suspen ded on t hat dat e. We disag re e wit h defend ant 's co nt ent ion. First , w e no t e t hat t her e we re no objec t ions to hearsay

evi dence. It is wel l e stablis

hed that when

hearsay evi dence is adm

itted without
an objec t ion, it is t o be co nsider ed a nd gi ven i ts na tural and prob ati

ve ef f ect. Pe o ple v. Ak is , 63 I ll. 2d 296 , 2 99 ( 197 6) . H er e, t he agr eed st at ement of f acts stipul ates that t he polic e off

ic ers all testi fi

ed
co nsis t en t ly

with thei r report s and that the reports were at tached to t he agre ed stat emen t o f f acts. Coll in s f il ed two r eport s that were att ached to the agreedstat emen t o f f acts, a nar ra t ive rep or t and
a swo rn r epo rt . T he nar ra t ive rep or t re late s t hat defend ant 's dr iver's li censewa s " su sp en

de d a s of 10 /01." Coll

in s' sworn report relates that, at t he tim e of def endan t's arrest, defenda

nt did n o t surrender hi s driv er's l ic ense b ecause i

t was already

suspen ded. The sworn repo rt also states that defend ant 's dri

ver's lice nse w as no t valid at t he t ime of de fendant 's ar re st . T ake n t og et her , t he
nar ra t iver ep o r t an d t he sw o rn r ep o r t r ea so na bly es t ab lish t ha t de fen da nt 's d r ive r 's li cense was suspen ded at the time

of his arrest. Indulgi

ng i n al l reas onabl

e presum ptions i n f avor of the trial
co ur t 's judg ment d emons t ra t es t hat t he St at e pr ove d beyo nd a r eas ona ble do ubt t hat defend ant 's dr iver's l i cens e w assu sp en de d on Septembe

r 17, 2004. Defendan

t's argum ent focuses

only o n t he suf fi ci ency of the evi

dence an d fai ls to consider the w ai

v er wr oug h t by his fai

lure t o o bject t o t heNo. 2-- 05--0582

-8-

adm is si bi li ty of the ev

ide nce. Ac cordingl

y, we reject defenda

nt's contenti on that t he ev ide nce was in suf fi ci ent to suppo rt his c onviction of dri vi ng wh il e his lic ense wa s suspen

ded. B. C onte nti ons A ri si ng Fr om DU I Con vi cti on Ne xt, de f en da n t m akes a d ual con ten ti on . F i rs t, d ef en da n t argue s t hat t he o mission o f the vi deotape from the record on appeal precludes ef fectiv e review b ecause t he vi

deotape was displ

ay ed f ort he t rier of fac t . D efenda nt also ar gue s t hat t he evi dence was

in suf fi ci ent to pr ove hi s guilt of DUI beyond a r eas ona ble do ubt . We will addr ess e ach c ont ent ion in t ur n. 1. Rev i ewabi l i ty of record Defend ant begins his ana lysis by arg ui ng tha t the State has a n obl i ga ti on to provide a re cord of suf fi ci ent compl

eteness to permi

t appell ate revie w, citi ng Luke , 2 53 I ll. App. 3d a t 139 ("[ t ]he Sta te m ust f urnis h a re co rd of su ffi

cient co mplet enes s t o p er mit pr op er co nsider at ion o f [t he defendan t's] cla ims" )
. T his r ule po sit ed by d efe nd an t ap pe ar s t o co nflic t wi th th e r eq ui re men t, exem pli fi ed in cases l ike Fernan

dezand Malle

y , that a defe ndan

t is res po nsible for pr ese rving a nd pr epa ring a suf

f i ci en tl y com pl eterec ord f

orpurposes of a

ppea l
. Fernan dez , 344 Ill . App. 3d at 160; Malle y , 103 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 536. Ho we ve r , t he co nflic t is i l l us ory --th e re sp ons i bi l i ty f or prep ara

ti on of t he r eco rd re mains with t he de fendant . The f inancial burd en o f obt aining a t ra nscr ipt , if the defend ant is ind ige nt , is pla ced upon the State. S ee Luke , 253 Ill . App. 3d at 139, quo ting Gr iffin
v. I llino is , 351 U.S. 12, 19 , 10 0 L . Ed . 89 1, 8 99 , 76 S. Ct. 585, 591 (1956) ("a St ate must af ford an in digent de f

en da nt ' asad eq

ua te a ppe l l aterev

i ew asde f en da nts wh o ha ve mone y en ough to b u y transcripts' ")
. T hu s, t he r es po nsib ili t y of pr ovi din

g the record for the appell ate court to review re mainswith the de fen

dant; the def

endan t's fi nan ci al burden f or s o doi n g i s b orn e b y th e S tate wh ere the de f en da nt c an not a f f ord to do so.No. 2-- 05--0582

-9-

Having determi

ned tha t a d ef en da nt m us t prov i dea suf f i ci en tl y com pleterec ord on

ap pe al,
we reviewthe appli cable princi ples. In order t o raise an appeal, the defendan t must pres en

t a record of su fficie nt co mple t en es s t o pe r mit pr op er co nsider at ion o f the def endan t's s peci f i c cl ai m s of error. Pe o ple v. H op ping , 60 I ll. 2d 2 46, 251 -52 (19 75) ; Luke , 253 Ill . App. 3d at 139. (As noted above, t his obligat ion r emains wit h even t he in dige nt defen dant. The i

ndi gent defe ndan t is n ot dis advan

taged unduly , however, because the Stat e must be ar the cost of prepa ri ng th e rec ord on ap

peal .) Wh

ere t he cour t fin

ds t hat t he de fendant is not at fault for t he inco mplet enes s o f the re co rd , it will be
ame na ble to affor ding t he de fendant re l i ef on th e b as i s th

at th e r ec ord i s i n suf f i ci en t to al l ow a pp el l ate review. We provide sev

eral exam ples. In People v . Stark , 33 Ill . 2d616 (1 966), the su prem e court rem

anded the ca

use f or anew hear ingon t he de fendant 's mot ion t o s upp re ss whe n, t hro ugh no fault of t he de fendant , t her e wa s no transcript of the su ppr es si on h ea ri ng avai l ab l e i n th e re cord on appe al . The

courtnoted that, wh ere t he i ss ue s d i scus se d du

ri ng the su ppr es si on h ea ri ng touc he d up on th

e d ef en da nt' s k now i ng wai ve r of his r igh t t o co nsu lt an attor ney and wh ether hi s conf

essi on was m ade knowi

ngl y or had b een i

nduced by t he po lice, t he t ra nscr ipt of t he su pp re ss i on h ea ri n g w as "e ss en ti al to an adequate r evi ew." Stark , 33 Ill . 2dat 621 . T hus, t he co ur t in Stark incor po ra t ed bo t h whet her t he de fen da nt wa s a t fau lt in not prov i di ng a p orti on of

the rec ord a nd the m i ss i ng porti on s' s i m port ance or mate riality t o t he court's ab i l i ty to rev i ew th e m atter. In Peo ple v. Ra

mos , 295 Ill . App. 3d 522, 524 (1998), t he def endan t's origi nal atto rney did not fi le a notice of appe al . Th

re e y ea rsl ate r, th e def en da n t wa s a l l owe d to f

i l e a l ate no t ice o f ap pe al. Fo r t he n ext yea r- and -a -h alf, t he defen dant attempted to compi

le a compl ete record o n appeal, but
was unable t o lo cat e t he st eno gr aphic no t es o f the bench trial
. A ddi ti on al l y , the def en da n t' s a ttem ptsNo. 2-- 05--0582

-10-

to cr eat e a byst ande r's report were unsucce ssf ul beca use t he de fense a t t or ney, t he pr os ecu t or , a nd t he trial cou rt c oul d n ot l oca te t heir no t es o r files and ha d insufficient indepe ndent memor ies o f the pro ceedings. Ra

mos , 29 5 I ll. A pp . 3d at 52 4. T he ap pe llate c ourt r uled t hat , o n t he de fendant 's chal le nget o t he su fficie nc y o f t he ev ide nc e, t he de fen da nt ha d d emo nst r at ed lac k o f fau lt in pr ovid ing
an i nc omp l ete rec ord as wel

l as s ome State f aul t in pl aci ng th e def endan t in that si tuati on. Ra

mos , 295 I ll. App. 3d at526-27. As a resul t, t he court held tha

t t he def endan t was entitl ed to a new trial in ord er to v i n di ca te the defe ndan t's righ t t o a direct

appe al
. Ra

mos , 295 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 527. Ra mos , t hen, app ear s t o fo llow t he idea in Starkof c ombining t he r elat ive fault of t he de fendant wit h t he i m portanc e or m

aterial i ty of the m i ssi ng p ortion

of the rec ord. In People v . S ea ls , 1 4 Ill . App. 3d 413 (1973), t he State was ordered t o comple te a by stander's report but did not obey the order. Ultim

ately , the trial court provided

a syno psis o f the pr oc eed ings. The defend ant fil ed a st at ement t hat co nfli

ct ed w ith t he t rial co ur t 's re ndit ion. Se als , 14 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 414. The court n

oted that the

tri al co ur t 's su mmary was s ufficient t o s how t he defend ant 's guil

t but was ful

l of concl usory l anguage and lac king i

n de tai l suf f i ci en t to al l ow a pp el l ate review. Th e c o ur t held t hat t he r ep o rt o f proceedin gs wa s n ot s uf f i ci en t to en ab l e th e c our t to pr o pe r ly revi ew th e al

l eged tria l errors, e nti tli ng th e def en dan t to a new tri

al
. Se als , 14 Ill . App. 3d at 414. Ag ai

n, Se als co mbine d t he co nc ep t s o f fau lt (the defen dant bore no faul

t whil e the State was at fault for not co mplyi

ng wit h t he ord er

to co m pl ete a b y sta n der' s rep ort) an

d th e m ate rial i ty of t he
m i ssi ng e vi den ce or portion of

the re cord to the cour

t's a bi l i ty to rev i ew th e i ssues on

appe al
. In Stark , Ra

mos , and Se als , b oth e l em en ts w ere pre sent: the

de f en da nt' s l ac k of fault and t he
mate rial i ty of th e mis sing ev id ence or po rt ion o f the re co rd t o t he co ur t 's re view. Defend ant , by
con tra st, suggests that a per se rule sho uld o bt ain: I f evidence pr ese nt ed a t t rial is missing fro m theNo. 2-- 05--0582

-11-

rec ord on appe al , th en

the rec ord is n

ot su fficie nt ly

com pletef or ap pe l l aterev

i ew . Ou r an al y sis of t he law i n Ill in ois bel ies thi s per se ru le. We t her efo re t ur n t o o t her jurisd ictio ns to attempt to di sce rn the ro ot s of defen

dant's per se rule. The pr inciples pr ese nt in Illi nois law , mat er iality of t he miss ing ev ide nc e a nd lac k o f fau lt in
cau sing the omissi

on, have been adopted in a num ber of ot her juri sdictions. See Chad wick v. Sta te , 214 Ga. App. 643, 448 S.E.2d 751 ( 1994) ( if th e def en da n t f ai l s to tak e step s to pr ocu

rea c om pl ete record, the co urt will

not review t he claim); Hal l v . Sta te , 849 N.E.2d 466

(In d. 2 006 ) (l

oss of transcript of guilt y plea hea ring w ill

not pr event re view whe re t her e is no sho wing of misco nduc t by t he St at e and t he de fendant does not argue t hat he was pre judiced) ; Comm

onweal th v. Pudder , 41 Mass. A pp. Ct. 930, 673 N.E.2d 82 (1996) ( the defe ndan t found to be at faul

t in f ai li ng to pro vi

de
a tran scri pt; the cou rt di d n ot o r de ra n ew t r ial insuch a c ircumst ance) ; Com monwe al th v . Barry

, 19 Mass. A pp. Ct. 995, 475 N.E.2d 425 (1985) ( nei ther the defen

dant nor the Comm

onweal th was at fau lt fo r a ga p in t he r ec o rd ; t he a pp ellat e c o ur t re so lved dis pu t es in favo r o f t he d efe nda nt t o nullify any prejudi ce that may h

ave o ccur red as a r esult of t he incomplete rec or d); Braw n er v . Sta te , 947So. 2d 254 (Miss . 2 006 ) ( t he de fendant po sses sed t he tap es n ec es sa ry to prov i de

a c om pl ete record but did not pr ovid e a c omp lete re co rd ; t he co ur t held t hat t he de fendant 's fault effect ively waived t he cla im of er ro r) ; Dykes v. Mc Ne ill , 735 S.W.2d213 (Mo. 1987) ( the defe ndan t dil ige ntly attempted to provi de com pl ete rec ord an

d was there f ore not at f

aul t for th e i

nc omp l ete rec ord; the court ordered a new t rial because the incomplete rec or d pr ecluded review) ; State v. Bish op , 350 N .J . Super
. 335 , 79 5 A .2d

297(20 02)(th e d ef

en da nt' s dec i si on t o fle e ca use d t he los s o f signifi cant po rt ions of

t he r eco rd ; t he co ur t held t hat t he de fendant co uld no t now be rewarded by a new tria

l due to his earlier wr ong ful actio ns); Brown v. Sta te , 7 43 P .2 d 13 3 ( Okla. Crim. Ap p. 198 7) (t heNo. 2-- 05--0582

-12-

defend ant h el

d to b e a t f aul t f or not atte m

pti ng to obta i n v i de otap e h

e c l ai med to be m i ss i ng f rom record; the c ourt den

i ed th e def

endan t's c l ai m on ap peal ). The re does not appear t o be a uni form nationa l s tandard regardin

g how t o ap po r t io n t he burden to provide

a suf fi ci ently compl ete appell ate record. For exam

ple , some j urisdi

ctions se em

to have a n o - fau lt rule : a nyt ime t he r ec o r d o n a pp ea l is no t su fficie ntly compl et e, t he de fen da nt will
re ceive reli

ef. See W i l son

v . Sta te , 334 M d. 4 69 , 63 9 A .2d 69 6 ( 19 94 ) (w

h er e p ar ti es atte m pt to reconstruct re cord b

ut f ai l , re med y i s n ew tr ial); Stat e v. Til

ton , 149 Wash . 2d 775, 72 P.3d 735 (2003) (s am

e). Li ke wi se , i n oth er j urisd i cti ons , th e b urden of mai nta i ni ng a c om pl ete rec or d on appeal re sts on t he State or the tri

al court i nstead of the def endan t. In thos e j uri sdi

cti ons, th e f ail ure to pr ov i de

a s uf f i ci en tl y com pl ete r ec o r d o n a pp ea l will r es ult in a new tria

l. See Sc ott v . Sta

te , 355 Ark. 485, 139 S.W.3d 511 (2003) (tri al cou rt had re sp on si b i l i ty to ke epa c om

pl ete r ec o r d o f t he t r ial; reviewof record showed

it was suffici

ent ly co mplete fo r pu rpo ses o f appea l); Jac obs v. Sta te , 327 Ark. 498, 939 S.W.2d 824 (1997) (t rial court had responsi

bi li ty to keep compl

ete record; new trial ordered where at te mpts t o r emedy incomplete r eco rd u nsucce ssful); Stat e v. Wa lke r , 84 4 So. 2 d 1060 (La. A

pp. 200 3) ( co ns t itu t ion impo ses r equ irement for co mplet e r eco rd on a ppe al; missing evi dence cruci

al t o r eview o f case and t her efo re , t he de fendant rece i ve d the rem edy of a new tri al ). Fr om our exa m i na ti on of cases i n Il li nois , as well a s those in

ot her j urisd i cti ons tha t f ol l ow si mi la rprin ci ple s, we concl

ude that t he r ule de scr ibed in Ho pping pr ovid es t he ge ner al st at ement of t he law i n Ill in ois: th e def

en da n t i s obl i ga ted to prov i de

a s uf f i ci en tl y com pl ete re cord f or a pp el l ate review. Ho pping , 60 Il

l . 2 d at 2 51 -5 2. Th i s r

ul e is rel axed wh er e th e i n com pl ete re cord r es

ul ts through n o f

aul t o f the defe

ndan t and the i

nsuf fi ci ency preclude s ef

fecti ve appel la te review . See Stark , 33 I ll. 2 d a t 62 1. De fen da nt , t he r efo r e, mus t mak e a du al s ho win g: t ha t t he vid eo t ap e isNo. 2-- 05--0582

-13-

ma terial to de f en da nt' s c onte nti ons on a ppe al an d that he i s n

ot at f aul t f or f ai l i ng to pr ese rve t he vi deotape. We note tha t, f rom Stark , Ra

mos , and Se als , defen

dant draws the proposition that an i n com pl ete r ec o r d o n a pp ea l re qu ire s t ha t t he de fen da nt be gr an t ed a n ew t r ial. T his a r gu men t is flawed, howe ver , be cau se d efenda nt neglec t s t he nec essa ry st eps t hat must be fulfil led befo re t he reli ef of a new trial can b e granted. As n

ot ed i mm edi ately above, the defe

ndan t must show both that t he missing par t of t he re co rd is neces sar y for e ffect iveappe l l aterev i ew an d that the d ef

en da nt i s n ot at faul t for the fact

t ha t t he record is

in compl ete. As we di scuss, def

endan t has f ulf il le d nei ther
re qui re men t. Defend ant es se nt ially ass er t s t hat t he lo ss o f the v ide ot ape alone, with n o ot her sh

owing,
renders the re cord

in compl ete for mean

in gful review on appeal an

d entitles hi

m to a new tr ial . This,
as weha ve de mons trate d, is th

e l aw ne i the r i n I l l i noi s n oreven i n those states that place the burden of pr od ucing t he record on

appe al on the State or the tri

al court. In all instances, t he defen

dant must establi sh t hat t he miss ing po r t io n o f t he r ec o r d is ess en tia l f or appel l ate rev i ew. Se e, e.g. , Peo ple v. Maj ka , 365 Ill . App. 3d 362, 370 (2006) (t he de fendant -a ppe llantmus t fi rst show a colorable need for t he evide nce missing fro m the recor d; upon such showing, the Stat e-appellee m ust sh ow th at a su b sti tute f or the m i ssi ng e vi den ce is suf f i ci en t); se e also, e.g. , Sim

pson v. Com

monwe al th , 759 S.W.2d 224 (Ky. 19 88) (su bstit ut e for mi ssing rec or d sufficient t o a ll ow appe ll at e re view); St at e v. Sto kes , 829So. 2d 1 009(L a. 2 002 ) (m i ss i ng au diotap e n

ot materi al

porti on of rec ord f orpurposes of review) ; St at e v . Mit ch ell , 8 97 S .W. 2d 1 87 ( Mo . Ap p. 199 5) (t he defend ant nei ther demons

trat ed
nor argued that miss in g a ud io t ap e c o nt ain ed info r mat io n r ele va nt t o t he ap pe llat e r ev iew o f hisNo. 2-- 05--0582

-14-

conten tions); Bor

dm an v . Sta te , 56 S. W.3 d 63 (T ex. App. 200 1) (ne ither St at e no r t he de fendant rai sed i ssue rega

rdi ng m i ssi ng ta pe; court he l d tha

t tape was

unn ece ssa ry f or resol uti on of appe al ). Defend ant does not argue t ha t t he r e is a c o lo r ab le n ee d f or th e v i de otap e. De f

en da n t f ai l s to
ar ti cul ate wh at t he vid eo t ap e w o uld sho w. De fen da nt fur t he rfails to suggest that t he v ide ot ape was ex cul patory or contrad

i ctory of any ot her evi dence prese

nted at tr ia

l. Def endan t argues only t hat t he vi deotape is m

is si ng. Thi s i s an i

nsuf fi ci ent dem onstration of a colorabl

e need. Defend ant attempts to avoi d the neces si ty of dem onstrating a

co lor able nee d fo r t he missing vi deotape by

arguin g that t here i s no acceptabl e substitute for it in

reviewi ng the i ssue of t he suf fi ci ency o f t he ev id enc e o f d efenda nt 's gu ilt. R ega rd less o f the validity o f tha t view, defend ant co uld have establ

is hed a colorable n

eed. Had t her e bee n anything d epict ed o n t he vi deotape t hat was inc o ns ist en t wit h C o llins ' a nd Klin ge l's t es t imo ny, de f en da nt c oul d have a men de d or suppl em ented the a greed statem en t of f acts. Defe ndan t also could h

ave estab li

shed a colorable need

by pointi ng to argument of counse l
orcom men ts by the tri al courtabout the vi deotape. See, e.g. , People v . Appel gren , No. 2- -05--0018, slip op. at 10 (Oct o ber 30, 200 7) (c olo ra ble need for missing evidence est ablished be cau se o f the emp ha sis giv

en it in th e p ros ecutor' s c l osi

n g a rgum en t). I f , f or e x am pl e, th e a gr ee d s tate

men t of f ac ts rep orted tha t cou ns el f ort he St at e and for defend ant had d isagr eed on w hat co nclusio ns sho uld be drawn from the vi deotape, t hen

there mi ght be a colorable n

eed for the vi

deotape, because we wo uld ha ve to decide wh

at conc l usi ons c oul d be

properl y drawn f rom i t. Defend ant arg

ue s on l y tha t the ab senc e of

the vi de otap e re

nd ers the rec ord i ns uf f i ci en t f or purposes of appel

la te review . As we h

ave n ot ed , t his is neithe r t he st anda rd nor a su ffi cient de m ons trati on of col orabl e n ee d. B ec au se

de f en da nt h asnot ma de even a pr ima fa cie showi

ng thatNo. 2-- 05--0582

-15-

t he ab sen ce of the v i deotape i m pai rs our revi

ew of the re cord on a

ppea l , we con cl ude that the re cord as i t now stands i s s

uf f i ci en t f orreview. The f

act that defendan

t do es not argue that t he v ide ot ape was ev en i n th e l ea st bi t ex cul pa tory or i n con siste n t wi th any of the poli

ce testim ony pres ented at trial lea ds us t o co nc lud e t ha t it is no t mat er ial t o t he po int s he r ais es o n a pp ea l. Li kewi se, defen

dant ma kes no argumen

t t hat t he inc o mple t e r ec o r d w as no t du e t o his fa ult in as se mbling t he r ec o rd o n ap pe al. Wit ho ut su ch a co nt ent io n, de fend ant ca nno t sa t isfy t he la ck -o ffau lt el em ent of the Ho pping
- Stark
- Ra mos - Se als li

ne of cases. We n

ot e that t he loss of

the vi deotape
was con f i rm ed at l ea st f i ve we ek s i n a dvan ceof t he due date of defe

ndan t's brief on appe al

and ab out five mont hs be f

ore the m atter was ready to be pl ace d be f ore t his c o ur t fo rde cis io n. T he r e w as amp le t ime for defend ant to correct the agreed statemen t o f f acts to refl

ect any incons iste ncies bet wee n t he vi deotape an

d th e of f i cers ' testi mon y . D ef en da n t h as not dem ons t ra t ed, even c ur so rily, t hat t he record on appeal

is in suf fi ci ent for our r ev iew
. Ac co r di ng ly, we c onc lude t hat we may re view t he
recor d on appeal as it stands bef ore u s. 2. Suf f i ci en cy of ev i de nc e supp orti

ng DU I con vi cti on Defend ant al so expl

ic itl y a rgues th at th

e ev i den ce

wa s i n suf f i ci en t to prove hi s guilt of DUI bey ond a reas onab l e doubt. We d

i sag ree. Our anal ys is above h as dem onstrated t hat

de f en da n t h as f ai l ed to establ is h that the vi

deotape i s es se n ti al to t he i ssue of suff ici ency of the eviden

ce or t o any other o f def endant's contentions. Ac co r di ng ly, we will

exam in e the record as it st ands befo re us t o d et er mine whet her any r ea so na ble trier of fac t co uld have f

oun d d ef en da n t gui l ty of DUI b ey on d a re as on ab l e doub

t. Berrier , 36 2 I ll. App. 3d at 1169.No. 2-- 05--0582

-16-

The police report s attached to t he agreed stateme nt of f acts in dic ate that defendan

t mum bled, stutt ered, sp o ke inc o he r en t ly, was confus ed as to his whereab out s, was conf

used as to where he was going, sm el le d st r o ng ly of a lcoho l, and st agg er ed w hen he a t t empt ed t o w alk. In a ddit ion, defend ant 's ey es were gl ass y and bl oodshot, an

d def endan t was d i shev eled. Defendan

t also r efu se d t o t ak e a field sob riety test. We h

ol d th at th i s e v i den ce wa s m an i f estl y suf f i ci en t to al l ow th e c our t to find defend ant gui l ty of the off ense of DUI beyond a

reas onab l e doubt. Ac co r din gly, we r eje ct de fen da nt 's e xp licit
co nt ent ion t hat t he evide nce w as insufficient t o s upp or t his DUI co nvictio n. Bef ore co ncluding, we r esp ond t o t he sp ecial co ncur re nce's more germ ane poi nts. The speci

al
co nc ur r en ce st at es t ha t de fen da nt did not r aise the suf fi ci ency of the evi

dence of DUI and attaches
an ex cerpt f rom d ef endan t's b ri ef to supportits n

ot ion. The

fi rst sentence i

n the attachm

ent bel ie s t he
asse rt ion: "B ec au se

the l oss of a [ sic ] cruc i al

prosec uti on ev i den ce re nde rs the record insu fficie nt ly
com pl ete t o pe r mit full a nd pr o pe rco nsid er at io n [ o f] t he cla im th at th e def en da n t rai se d i n h i s p ost trial mot ion - t hat he was not pro ved gui lty bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt (C33) - t he def

endan t has been de pri v ed of h i s c on sti tuti on al ri gh t to a direct appeal." Integr al to t he parties' en ti re c onc ep ti on of the is sues on appeal

is the ide a that the evi

dence wa s i ns uf f i ci en t to su ppor t de f en da nt' s c onv i cti on bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt. Accordingl

y, we are com

pel le d to address thi s i ssue. Re lat ed ly, the special

concurrence strongl

y c riti cizes t he major ity for re aching b oth el em en ts of t he missing evidenc e inquir y, t he f aul t i n qui ry an d th e c ol ora b l e n ee d or mate rial i ty inquiry. T he special concurrence would im

pose a waiv

er on de f en da n t f or f ai l i n g to d i sc us s th e f aul t el em en t, and it would ter mi

nate its anal

ysis at t hat po int. In o ur view, how ever , bo t h element s nee d t o be addressed, consi

derin g the equi ties of this case.No. 2-- 05--0582

-17-

The State doesnot argue tha t def endan t was a t fa ul t for f ai li ng to pres erve the v

ide ot ape. Instead, the Stat e argues thatde f en da n t ma y be at fa ult f or faili ng to deman

d earli er that t he v ide ot ape be preserv

ed. Rat her t han indicat ing t hat defend ant was at fault , t he St at e's a rg ument sug ges t s t he opposite--t hat

de f en da nt d i d n ot ha ve the vi de otap e a nd di d n ot cau se it s los s. T he ci

rcumstances report ed in the aff ida vi t concernin

g the loss of

the vi deotape further in

dic ate that the vi

deotape was not und er def endan t's c ontrol at the ti me of i ts l oss. Acco rd ingly, the re co rd app ear s t o s upp or t t he ide a tha t de f en da nt, asa m atte r of hi stori cal f ac t, wa s n ot at f aul t f orfaili ng t o p re ser ve t he missing evi dence. Due t o t his fact ual cir cumst ance , a nd not wit hst anding d efenda nt 's failure t o r eco gnize t he role of f aul t in h is anal ys is of the m is si ng ev ide nce, the i deal s of j ustice an

d fai rness di ctate t hat we f or go st rict app licatio n of w aiver a nd pr oc eed t o t he mat er iality or co lor able nee d element of th e missin g evi dence anal

ysi s. The special

concurrence ci

tes a num ber of cas es f

rom whi ch it p ur po rt s t o d er ive the rule that la ck of f aul t m us t b e dec i de d b ef

oremate rial i ty or c ol ora b l e n ee d. S l i p op . a t 22 . C on

tr ar y to it s re pr ese nt at ion, none of t he ca ses c ited by the special concurrencest at e a r equ irement t hat fault be considered

be f ore m ateri al i ty or col orabl e n ee d. F urth er, wepe rce i

ve no r eq ui rem en t tha t ei the r of t he two h urd l esde f en da nt f ac esbe addre ss ed

f i rs t. It i s e asy

to i mag i ne a s i tua ti on wh er e fa ult might be a c lo se qu es t io n bu t lac k o f mat er ialit y o rco lo r ab le need is rea dily appar ent . We wo nder what t he special concu rr ence wo uld d o if an ap pellee d emons t ra t ed q uit e co nclusively tha t cer t ain missing evidenc e simply had no bear ing o n t he issues rai sed in the appeal and expressl

y decl in ed to address t he fault issue. In sho rt , w e do not see t hat one o f t he t wo hu r dl es is " pr ef at o ry" (s l i p op . a t 25 ) to t he ot her . E ithe r c an be ad dr esse d first and s omet imes it is bet t er t o a ddr ess bo t h, jus t as in a St rick land an alys is o f ine ffec t ive as sis t an ce o f co un se l.No. 2-- 05--0582

-18-

The special

concurrenceco nt ains a r at her expa nsive dis cu ss io n o f Fo ut ch v. O'Br yant , 99 I ll. 2d 38 9 ( 19 84 ), c on cl

udi n g w i th : " Fi n al l y , i t i s a wa ste of ti me f or th re e a pp el l ate j us ti ce s to con tem pl ate the possibil

ity that t he Foutchrule m

igh t not appl y, address the me rits of an appeal that
was imp r o pe r ly p er fe ct ed , ins uf fic ien t ly co ns t it ut ed , an d i mp r o pe r ly argue d with i mproper presumptions, only

to concl ude the Foutchrule i

n f act do es ap ply. " S lip o p. at 26
. Ac t ua lly, o ur o nly
men ti on o f Foutchis n

ow, in response to the special

concurrence, bec ause we do no t se e it as at all applic abl e. An app ellant c onfr ont ed w ith Foutchwil l a rgue that t he missingpa

rt of the rec ord is n

ot ne ces sary fo rco nsid er at io n o f t he ap pe al. He r e, de fen da nt 's mo t iva t io n is pr ecisely t he o ppo site
-- he is argu i ng p re

judi ce becaus e the m

is si ng vi deotape is ne ce ss ar y fo rco nsid er at io n o f t he ap pe al. Moreov er, the s

peci al conc urr enc e' s r ef

ere nc esto Foutchbelie its c ont ent ion t hat fault must be addressed be f ore c ol orabl e n

ee d or material i ty of the m i ssi ng e vi den ce. Foutchappl

i es on l y i f there is not "a s uf f i ci en tly com pl ete rec ordof the pro ceedings at trial." Foutch , 99 Ill . 2d at 391. Thus, in ord er to s ay th at Foutchapp lies, t he sp ecial co ncur re nce mus t have al ready determ i ne d tha t there is a n ee d f or th e i tem m i ss i n g f rom th e r ec ord . W

h i l e w e m ai n tai n th at t he ord er i n w hi ch a court cons i ders lack o f fault a nd mat er iality do es no t matt er , t he spe cial co ncur re nce, by er ro neo usly relying
on Foutch , actually

makes a strong argu men

t t hat defendant must show colorable need f irst, because
we woul d n o t ap pl y Fo utchunless there were a n eed for the evi

dence m is si ng f rom the record. The special

concurrence com

pla i ns t ha t we inc o rr ec t ly ana lo giz e o ur an alys is w it h t ha t in St rick land
. Sli

p op. at 26. However, the speci al concurrence ef

fecti vel y a grees with our

anal ysi s, re co gnizing that if mat er ialit y o f o rco lo r ab le n ee d fo rt he miss ing ev ide nc e is determi ned, then we
can exam in e faul t o r lack of

faul t in i ts loss. Slip o p. at 27
. Simi la rly , the speci al

concurrence ch all eng es ou r r eliance o n Malle y , because i

t "appli es the Foutchrule." Sl

i p op. at 29. H owev er,No. 2-- 05--0582

-19-

Malle y st at es, "[a ]bs en t an ad eq ua t e p r es en t at io n o f t he r ec o r d b y t he ap pe llant , ev er y re as o na ble intend ment agains

t t he defen

dant is presumed on appeal." Malle y , 103 Ill . App. 3d at 536 . " Absent
an ad eq ua te p res en tation of t he r eco rd " is ano t her way o f sta t ing t hat t he evidenc e missing fro m the
reco rd i s m

aterial to the defe

ndan t's clai m, or that a colorabl e need f or t he ev ide nce h as been dem onstrated. Thu s, w e ar e r elying upo n Malle y's s tate m en

t th at a de f en da n t m us t demon strate
ma terial ity or co lorabl

e need. III. CONCLUSION Defend ant has f

ai l ed to sh owt hat t he evide nce w as insufficient t o s upp or t his guilt be yond
a reasonabl

e doubt of driv

in g whi le hi s lic ense was suspen

ded. Li kewi se, defe

ndan t has fai le d t o ma ke th e r eq ui si te showi ng that he was

not at fault regardi

ng the omi

ssion of the vi

deotape and that t he vi deotape is m

aterial to hi s c onte nti ons on appeal . Defen

dant has al

so fai le d to dem

onstrate t hat t he ev ide nc e w as insu fficie nt t o su pp o r t his D UI co nvic t io n. Ac co r din gly , we affirm defenda nt 's
conv i cti ons. For the foregoing reas ons, the judgm ent of the ci

rcuit court o f K

endal l C ounty i s af

fi rmed. Af fi rmed. BYRNE, J. , concur s. JUSTICE McLAR

EN, specia

ll y c oncurrin

g: I c on cu r i n pa rt a n d s pe ci al l y con cu r i n pa rt. FIRST ISSUE "The def endan t was not pro ved gui

lty bey ond a re asonable doubt of drivi ng whi le l icense suspen ded- [ sic ] b ec au se

th e r ec ord

con tai n s n o ev i den ce th at h i s l i cen se wa s s us pen de d on

th e date of the traf f i c stop." D ef

endan t's B ri ef at 1 (poi

nts a nd a uthori tie s) (21 0 Ill . 2d R. 3 41(h )(1)).No. 2-- 05--0582

-20-

I concur in the anal

ysi s of the fi rst issue, re gar ding t he su spe nded license. The law r ega rd ing t he adm is si bi li ty of h earsay evi dence an d the appropriate weigh

t t hat ma y be gi ven to such ev

ide nce i f adm i tted wi thout obj ection i s we l l

estab l i shed. SECOND ISSUE "Because t he l oss

of cr uc i al pr ose cu ti on ev i den ce re n dersth e r ec ord

i n suf f i ci en tl y com pl ete to permi t full a nd proper revi ew, the defen dant has b een depri

ved of his constitutional

righ t t o a direct appeal of his co nvictio n for dr iving und er the i nf l uen ce of alcohol
. The co nvictio n must t her efo re be reversed an

d the cause rem

anded f or a new trial

on th at ch arge ." De f

en da n t' s B rief at 1 (p oi n ts and authoriti es) (2 10 Il

l . 2d R. 3 41(h

)(1)). Defend ant 's Arg ument Defend ant fi

le d a three-page ar gument clai mi ng that t he loss of crucial

prosecution evi

dence pr ev en ts t h e c om

pi l ati on of a r ec ord suf f i ci en t f or m ea n i n gf ul re v i ew . Th

i s e n ti reargu men t i s i ncl uded i n an appen di x to thi s s pe ci al con cu rre n ce so t h at th e r eader c an

re ad an d c on si der the argu men t. Defe ndan t pro perly ci tes to cases f

or t he gen eral pr op os itio ns that a defen

dant is entitled to a d ire ct ap pe al o f

hi s c on viction an

d that t he State must provide , to an i ndi gen t def endan t, a sufficient tran

scri pt f orme ani ngf ul rev i ew . How ever, de f

en da nt c i tesca se s th

at re l ateto m

i ss i ng or in compl ete t ra nscr ipt s o f pro cee dings. The se c ase s do not st and f or, or e v en

con si der, th e ri gh t to me ani ngf ul re view in the co nt ext of lo st re al evidenc e. Defend ant prop erl y ci testo Stark , Ho pping , Ra m os , and Se als as t hey relat e t o t ra nscr ipt s but do es no t set for t h t he t wo -st ep t est t o e st ablish the righ t t o a reversal . See, e.g. , Ra mos , 29 5 Il

l . A pp. 3d a t 526 -27 (de f

en da nt h ad "n o con trol over" t he circu msta nces t hat led t o t he co mpilatio n of a n incomplet e r eco rd and p re sent ed a " col or ab le need" fo ra v er ba t im t r an sc r ip t )
. De fe nd an t co nve nie nt ly men t io ns o nly t h e s ec on d s te p o f theNo. 2-- 05--0582

-21-

anal ysi s, re l ati n g to "c ol orabl e n

ee d." De f en da nt d i sr eg ard s th

e n ee d to e sta

bl i sh tha t he i s n ot at fau lt for the abse

nce of the mi ssi ng ev ide nce . In order to raise

a pr op er and a deq uat e ap pea l, a d efenda nt must pr ese nt a r eco rd of su ffi cient completenessto pe rm

i t prop er c ons i de rati

on of hi s s pe cif i c c l ai m s of error. Ho pping , 60 Ill . 2d at 251-52; People v . Luke , 253 Il l . Ap p. 3d 13 6, 140 ( 1993)
. The re spo nsibil ity for pr epa ra t ion o f the record is bo rne by t he de fendant ; if the d efenda nt is indigent , t he financial bur den o f obt aining a tra n scri pt, not the a

dm i nistrati ve bur den of prepar i ng th e rec ordo n a pp ea l, is pla

ced upon the State. See Luke , 253 Ill . App. 3d at 139. The resp onsi bi l i ty of provi di ng th e rec ord f or the ap pel l ate court to r ev iew o res t ab lishin g a col ora ble need for t he missing po rt ion o f the re co rd re mains on t he defen dant. See Luke , 253 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 140. Wi thout cit at io n to a

uth or ity, d efenda nt claims tha t it is t he St at e's bu rd en t o p re ser ve t he evi dence or pro vi de the d ef

en da nt wit h a co py o f t he ev id en ce . Wit ho ut cit at io n t o au t ho r it y, defend ant furt her claims tha t "t he missing video is the equ ivalent o f a missing tr ansc ript ." Again, wi th out c i tati on to au th ori ty , de f en da n t cl ai m s th at " [m]ean

in gful review requires [t he videot ape's] i nc l usi on i n the rec ord be caus e the

tria l j udge rel i ed up on i t." T his court i s n

ot a deposi

tory wherei n wemust re sea rc h and d evelo p t he pa rt ies' claims and arguments. Pe o ple v. T r imble , 181 Ill . App. 3d 355 , 3 56 ( 198 9) . T his co ur t is ent itled t o ha ve t he is sues c le a rly

defi ned an d to be ci

ted pe r t ine nt au t ho r it y; ar gument s t hat do not sat isfy the
re qui re men ts o f Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 3 41 ( 21 0 I ll. 2d R. 34 1) do no t mer it co nsid er at io n o n a pp ea l. Tri mble , 18 1 I ll. A pp . 3d at 35 6- 57 . De fen da nt mak es as se r t io ns b ut do es no t su pp o r t t he m wit h ci tation to l eg al au th ori ty . F ur th er , by f ai l i n g to e v en ackn owl ed ge th at lack o f fault is p ar t of t he two- step analysis, d efenda nt has failed t o r aise, let a lone es tab l i sh , hi s ow n l ac k of f aul t f orfaili ng toNo. 2-- 05--0582

-22-

in cl ude t he video t ape in the record on appe al
. Thu s, d efenda nt has w aived t he claim co ncer ning t he ri ght to a m

ean i ngf ul revi ew. Ma

j ori ty Di scus si on The ma jori ty sets f ort h the two-step analy

si s as, "Def

endan t, t heref ore, mus t make a dual showi ng: t hat t he video t ape is mate rial t o d efenda nt 's co nt ent ions o n app eal and t hat he is no t at fau lt f orfailing t o pr es er ve t he vid eo t ap e. " S lip op . a t 12- 13. The ma jori ty determi nes that def

endan t has not fu lfille d e it he rst ep . Un fo r t un at ely, the re a re s ev era l prob l em s wi th th e m aj ori ty's f orm ul ati on and appli cation of the t wo-st ep analy sis. Fi rst, the maj ority ha s, sua s pon te , inco rr ect ly tra nspo sed t he steps so as to plac e the l ac k of fau lt analysis last and t he co nsider at ion of the mer its firs t . I co me to t his co nclusio n beca use t he
maj ori ty do es no t fo llo w p r io rlaw an d is de vo id o f an y ra t io na le a llo win g it to al ter t he au th ori ty pr ev io us ly

contain ed i n num erous supr

em e an d app el l ate court ca ses . See, e.g. , Stark , 33 Ill . 2d 616; Pe o ple v. Maj ka , 365 Ill . App. 3d 3 62 ( 200 6); People v . Cunni ngha m , 309 Il l . Ap p. 3d 82 4 (199 9); Ra m os , 29 5 Ill. App. 3d 5 22; Luke , 25 3 Ill. App. 3d 1 36; Se als , 14 Il l . Ap p. 3d 41 3. The re i s n othi n g i n th e m aj ori ty opi n i on th at w oul d all ow i t to al ter prior law

em an ati ng f rom t he su pr eme co ur t . T he su pr eme co ur t in Stark f i rs t con si dere d w h eth er a m i ss i n g tr anscri

pt was t he fau lt of th e def en da n t-a pp el l an t. It det ermi

ned that the defe ndan t was not at f

aul t b ec au se th e d uty was on the Stat e to ini

tial ly provide a tra n scri pt, an d th e S tate wa s u n ab l e to do so be caus e the court report er wasuna bl e to loc ate her notes. Stark , 33 Ill . 2d at 621. T he c ourt th en pr oce eded

to det er mine if the mi ssi ng record was neces sary

for m eani ngf ul rev ie w. Stark , 3 3 I ll. 2d a t 621 . T he
maj ori ty he r e t ak es a r et r o gr es sive vie w o f jud icia l hier ar ch y, w he r ein th e a pp el l ate co ur t dec ides t he order in which the t wo -st ep t est is cast . Ap par ent ly, the major ity do es no t lack t he tem eri ty toNo. 2-- 05--0582

-23-

di sreg ard precedent of the suprem

e court. See Somers v. Q uinn , 373 Ill . App. 3d 87, 99-100 (2007) (O' Mal l ey, J., sp eci

al l y conc urri ng)
. I subm it that the reason that fault was add re ssed first by the s upr eme co ur t was t hat t he gene ra l rule a s set for t h in Fo ut ch v. O'Br yant , 99 Il l . 2d 389, 391-92 (19 84), posi ts: "[A]n appe l l an t h as th e b ur den to pres en

t a s uf f i ci en tl y com pl ete rec or d * ** to sup po rt a claim of er ro r, and in t he abs ence of su ch a r eco rd on a ppe al, it will be presum ed that the order entered by the tri al court was i

n conf ormi ty wi th law and h ad a suf fi ci ent factual basi s. An y doubts wh

ic h m ay aris e from

the in compl eteness of the

record wil

l b e resolv

ed agai nst the ap pel l an t." Wi thout the d e f

endan t estab l i sh i ng a l ack of f aul t, Foutchap plies . I f Foutchapplie s, then t he r e a r e n ume r o us pr es ump t io ns t ha t ar e e mplo yed in cons i deri ng th e m eri ts of th e app eal . If

t he record presented do es not clearly est ablis h that er ro r w as c ommitt ed, it w ill be pr esu med t hat t he order entered was i

n conf ormi ty wi th the la wand ha d a s ufficient fac t ual bas is, and t he de fen da nt will lose on the me

rits. If the def

endan t establishes

la ck of f aul t, t hen the Foutchrule an

d i ts negat ive pr esu mpt ions wil

l n ot be appl ie d. Ad dit io na lly, t he mo r e fa vo r ab le p r es ump t io ns s et fo r t h in Maj ka , 365 Ill . App. 3d 362, and Mayer v. Ci ty of Ch ic ago , 404 U.S . 189 , 30 L. Ed. 2d 372, 92 S. Ct. 410 (1971 ), wil l

appl y . This two- step an

al y sis is m ore prec i se l

y a tw o- stage an

al y sis. In ord er f or th e c our t to
eval ua te the m eri ts of t he ap pe al, it mus

t fi rst determin

e whether the def

endan t was at faul

t so t hat t he prop er s et of

pr esu mpt ions c an be a pplied in t he ana lysis o n t he merit s. I f a co ur t app lied t he twosta ge an al y sis i n re v er se , a

n y an al y sis woul d b e s ub j ec t to rev

i si tati on d ep en di ng upon whet her t he appr opri ate

pr esu mpt ions were applie d in conformi ty with the conclusi

on of the lack of faul

t analy sis.No. 2-- 05--0582

-24-

The court co uld a

ls o consider the m

erits un der both sets of presum

ptions an d then consi

der lac k of fau lt t o de t er mine w hic h p r es ump t io ns s ho uld appl y a nd wh ic h hy pot hetic al anal ys is was appropriate. That procedure, ex ce pt po ss ibly in a r ar e c irc ums t an ce , wo uld be judicially ineff icient. If you want to put your pants on after y ou put your

shoes on, you may , but if they don't fit over your shoes, yo u ma y have to t ak e your sho es o ff and pu t t hem back on a gain. The major ity's r efo rmulat ion o f the t wo - st ep an alys is is simila r ly impr ac t ica l. Addr essing lac k o f fau lt fi rst is the m

ost logical

an d pr ac ti cal j ux tap osi ti on. Fol l ow, i f you wil l, these scenari os, based upon pri or case law, i ncl udin g Maj ka , 365 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 36 2. Fi rs t sc en ari o: The def

en da n t i s a t faul t. He t hen

has s everal

choi ces as to how to proceed. He may pr o vide inst ea d o f t he miss ing p ar t o f t he record a s ub sti tute th at s ti l l doe s n ot al l ow me ani ngf ul r ev iew
. I f he ch o o se s t his a lt er na t ive , he lo se s be ca us e h e h as faile d t o su sp en d t he rule in Foutch . He may

provide a s

ubsti tut e that does al low m

eani ngf ul rev ie w. In such a

case, we will address t he me

rits of the cl

ai m a nd relax the Foutchru le, a nd

h e m ay wi n or he m ay l ose . Th e S tate
ma y or m ay n ot au gm en t th e s ub sti tute i n ord er to properl

y resp ond to the c l ai

m . How ev

er , the S tate does n ot have the

bur den to do so. Sec ond sc en ar io : T he de fen da nt is no t at fau lt . He has n owre laxed o r su spe nded t he Foutch rule. He th en h as se v eral ch oi ce s a s to h ow to proceed. First, he m ay provide a m

in im al su b sti tute that enab le s the appel

la te c ou rt t o determin

e that there is a col

orable n eed but doe s n ot al l ow f or me ani ngf ul revi ew. If the State does not augment the substitute t o pro vi de for m eani ngf ul review, t he de fen da nt win s a nd o bt ain s r ev er sa l an d a ne w t r ia l . Secon d, the defe ndan t may provide a subs t itu t e t hat will all

ow meaningful re view. We wo uld address t he m erits, and the defe

ndan t may win or lose. The State may

or may not augmen

t t he sub stitute in

order t o p ro per ly respo nd t o t heNo. 2-- 05--0582

-25-

cla im. The State has the burden to pr ovid e a s ufficient s ubst itu t e fo r meaning ful review if the defend ant establ

is hesa colorabl

e need b ut does not pro vi

de a suf fi ci ent record for mean

in gful review. Under t his scena rio t he presum

ptions that are applie d

ar e th e m oref av ora b l e p re su m pti on s s et f orth in May er and Maj ka
. It i s evi de nt f rom t he abo ve t hat , d epe nding u po n fault or t he lack t her eo f, t he de fendant and t he Stat e w il

l hav e to a

pp roa ch th e c l ai m i n di f f er en t wa y s, as to b oth strate gy an d w ork pr oduct. In th e f i rs t scenari

o, t he def endan t pro vi des a m eani ngf ul s ubsti tut e or he ce rt ainly l

os es. In t he
sec ond sc en ar io , he may a ct ua lly w in b y not pr ov i di n g a su b sti tute t ha t all ows mean in gful review. The di ff erence bet wee n t he t wo re sult s and the i r an al y se s a ri se s ou t of the pre f atory de term i na ti on as to whether the Foutchrul e i s to b e a

ppl i ed orrelax ed. Addi tional ly , the Stat e i s now burden

ed wi th making stra

teg i c c hoi ce s a nd cre ati ng work prod uc t tha t are not req ui red i n th e f i rs t sc en ari o. It is not str ategical

ly logical to proceed to the colorabl e need step un

til the is sue of

l ac k of faul t has been addressed an

d deci ded. Wh en the case i s presented to us for disposi tion, i f we do not fi

rst determin

e the i ssue of l

ack of faul t, we wil l h ave to consider b ot h sce

narios w ith di

ff erin g presum ptions an d the convol

uted per mut at ions that resul

t by puttin g the cart before the horse. The jux tapo siti on of the t wo-st age test decl ared by

the ma jori ty m akes no sense. The maj ori

ty di sreg ardsth e ob

v i ous si m pl i ci ty of di sp osi n g of th i s c as e pur suan

t to t he Foutch
rule due to defenda

nt's f ai lur e t o es t ab lish la ck o f fau lt fo rfiling an inc o mple t e r ec o r d. T his is imp r ac t ica l fo rsu nd ry r ea so ns . I t is a n in ef fic ien t us e o f d ef

en da nt 's t ime, mo ne y, and effo r t t o fail to estab l i sh

l ack of f aul t wi thout provi

di ng a mean i ngf ul sub sti tute. As sum

i ng, argu e ndo , t hat t he
maj ori ty ac t ua lly did de termi ne that there was a col orable n eed, defendan

t wo uld stil

l l ose becauseNo. 2-- 05--0582

-26-

he faile d t o su st ain hi

s b urden on th e n ow s ec ond

stageof l ac k of fault . I t is an inefficient us e o f the St at e's t ime, mone y, and effor t t o ha ve t o a ddr ess t he allege d mer its w hen t he se co nd stage (lac k of f aul t), which was raised b

y the Stat e, wo uld resolve the appeal so ex pedi tious l y . It i s a l so u n j us t to pla ce upon the State the bu rde n to provi dea m

ea ni ng f ul su bs ti tute w he n d ef en da nt h asf ai l ed to sh ow that the Foutchru le sho uld be s usp ende d. A possi b l e r es ul t of th i s f alse l ogi c is th at, i f th e S tate provide s a me an ing ful s ub st it ut e fo rt he r ec o r d, it will s t ill be u nc lea rwh ich se t o f pr es ump t io n s sho uld be ap pli ed to the s ubs titute. Fi n al l y , i t i s a wa ste of ti me f or th re e a pp el l ate j us ti ce s to con tem pl ate the possibil

ity that t he Foutchrul

e m i gh t not ap ply and to address the me

rits of an appeal that wa s imp r o pe r ly pe r fec t ed , insu fficie ntly co nsti tut ed, and i

mproperl y a rgued with i

mproper presum ptions, onl

y to concl ude that the Foutchrule i n f act does appl y . The m aj ori ty atte m pts to rational

iz e i ts reformul

ation by suggestin g that t here m

ay be tim es when addressing f

aul t fi rs t might be ineffi

cient and it wo uld be e asier t o a ddr ess t he merit s. T he
maj ori ty at t emp t s t o ame lio r at e it s r ef o r mu lat io n by ma

kin g an an alogy to t he St rick land

anal ysi s: "In short, we do not see that one of the two h urdl es is 'pref atory ' (s l i p op. at 25 ) to the

other. Either
can be ad dr es se d fir st an d s o met imes it is better t o address both, just as i n a St rick land

an al y sis of ineffect iveas sis tan ce of

counsel ." Sli

p op. at 17. The anal

ogy f ai ls . I do not bel

ie ve there i s an in stance where the sec ond prong of the St rick land anal ys is was anal yz ed and then

the fi rst pro ng was r evi sited t o determin

e i f couns el

was i nef fecti ve. The sec ond -p ro ng ana lysis invariably res ult s in a finding of lack of prej udic e, and def ic ie ncy is no t r ev isit ed , as wo uld be r eq uir ed in the maj ori ty of t he sc en ari os i nv ol ve d w i th a de term i na ti on of meaning ful review . Whe n t he St rick land anal ys is ski ps the fi rst step by presum

in g error, it does not apply

a di ff erent set o f pr es ump t io ns in de t er mining if prejudi ce ar o se . T he de t er mina t io n o f p r eju di ce is n o t af fe ct ed by t he na

ture of t he er ro r. TheNo. 2-- 05--0582

-27-

prejudi ce pr o ng do es no t ap pl y a different set of p re sumpt ions d epe nding u po n t he r eso lut ion o f the fi rst st ep . Ho we ve r , in t his a pp ea l, the la ck of f au lt w ill cau se t he r elaxat ion o f the nega t ive pr esu mpt ions in Foutch . The m eri t an al y sis is dep en

de nt u pon the res ol ution of the f au lt i ssue be caus e f aul t wi l l determ i ne the c orrect set of pre sum pti ons to app l

y . The maj ority

sugg ests th

at the f aul t step i s n

ot pref atory . I f so, th

en wh i ch set of pr esu mpt ions will be appli ed when the maj ority addresses the merits?The majo r it y co uld ac t ua lly

" Foutch " the def

endan t wereit t o u se t he neg at ive pr esu mpt ions a nd determi ne that "colorabl

e need"
was not esta

bl i shed. Th e m aj ority m i ght then clai m that the re is no ne ed t o de t er mine f au lt an d s imply affir m, as is d o ne wit h t he mut ua lly inde pe nd en t st ep s ina St rick land analysis. I f the def

endan t were ac t ua lly la cki ng f aul t, t hen he woul d be the v

ictim of the i mproper applic ation of the Foutchru le. T he St rick land an alo gy w o uld be valid o nly i f the ma jori ty were to apply

the fav orable pres

umptions that ap ply und er May er and Maj ka

and determ

i ne that col orabl e need was l

acki ng. H owev er, if the
maj ori ty found colorable n

eed wi th the fav orable pres

umptions, then i

t would have to co nsi

der la ck of fau lt t o de t er mine if

th e f av ora b l e p re su m pti on s w er e v

al i dl y appl i ed . Si m pl y pu t, l ack of f aul t se ts t he parame

ters of the meri

ts anal ys is . If i t is establ is hed f irst, there i s little pr o ba bilit y t hat t he pr esu mpt ions wil

l h ave to be revisi

ted or that in

corr ect pr esumptions wi

ll be appli ed. Thus, ut ili

zing t he second pro ng fi

rst and t hen revisiti

ng the fi rst pr ong is b oth contrary to the appl i ca ti on of St rick land an d i m pr ac ti ca l i n i ts o wn ri gh t. The m aj ori ty ci testo Malle

y for the following propo siti ons: "The resp onsi

bi l i ty f or pre ser ving a su ffi

cient ly complet e r eco rd of p ro cee dings be for e t he trial cou rt re sts wi th th e def en da n t. [Cit at ion]; Malle

y , 103 Ill. App . 3 d at 536 . Whe re t he record on appeal i s in

complete, any doubts arisi ng from that in

completenesswil

l b e construedNo. 2-- 05--0582

-28-

agai nst the de f

endan t [ci tation ] and every

rea son ab l e p res um ption i n f av or of t he judg ment below will be tak en ( Malle y , 103 Ill . App. 3d at 536)." Sli p op. at 7. In Malle y , the defe

ndan t faile d t o r equ est t hat a r eco rd be made of t he t rial. O n app eal, he presented an agree d s tate men

t of fac t s bu t cla imed t ha t it was i nsuf fi ci ent to alle ge error o r prejudi ce. Sim ilar to the case be fore us , t he de fendant in Malle y did n ot ma ke "any specifi c alle gations b

ut mer ely claim[ed] he [ did] not have a ppe al right s bec aus e he [did] not have a tr anscript." Malle y , 103 I ll. App. 3d

at 536 . T he co ur t went on t o p oint ou t t hat t he de fendant di d not ca rry out hi s burden to preserve the record be fore the trial court. Thus: "W here the record o n appeali s i nc om ple t e, t he co ur t will ind ulg e in ev er y re as o na ble pre su m ption fav o r ab le t o t he jud gme nt o ro r de rap pe ale d fr o m. [C i ta tion.] Abs ent an adeq ua te pr es en t at io n o f t he r ec o r d b y t he ap pe llant , ev er y re as o na ble in tendment against t he defendan t is presumed on appeal." Malle y , 103 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 536. If t he ab o ve qu o t e s o un ds familia r , it is beca use it is virt ually identica l to t he ho lding in Foutchquot ed above. I s ub

m i t th at Foutchwas not cited in Malle y si m pl y be caus e i t was n ot decided u

nti l two ye ars af ter Malle y . The m aj ority states : "A ct ua lly, o ur o nly ment io n o f Foutchis now , in re spo nse t o t he special concurre nce, because
we do no t se e it as at all a pp lica ble . An a ppe llant co nfro nt ed w ith Foutchwil l a rgue t hat t he missing pa r t o f t he r ec o r d is no t ne ce ss ar y fo rco nsid er at io n o f t he ap pe al. Her e, defend ant 's mot ivatio n is pre cisely the opposi te-- he is ar guing pr ejudice beca use t he missingvi deotape is necess ary f

or co nsi deration of the appea

l ." (Emphasi s added.) Sli p op. at 18. As the maj ori ty ci testo Ma ll ey as

au th ori ty , i t wou l d b e b oth i n teresti n g a n d en l i gh ten i n g f or i t to ex pla in wh y Malle

y applie s the Foutchrule. The defend ant in Malle y mad e v irt ua lly t he sa meNo. 2-- 05--0582

-29-

ar gument a s is m

ade h er e. The m

aj ori ty cl ai m s th at Foutchis

in applic abl e i n si tuations where t

h e defend ant makes t he argum en t em phasi zed a bove. If t he ho ldingin Foutchis in applic abl e i n thi s case, then Malle

y was wr ong t o ha ve applie d the ne ga ti ve pre su m ptions con tai ne d i n c as espri

or to Foutch
. Put an o t he rwa y, Foutchis a pp lied ba se d u po n t he an alys is s et fo r t h in t he co ur t 's d isp o sit io n. I t is not b ase d up on t he ar gument s made by the d efenda nt . I f the sup re me co ur t 's ho lding in Foutchis in applic abl e, why is the same ho lding, mad e t wo years ear lier by t he ap pellat e co ur t in Malle y , ci ted
as au th ori tati v e? In re sp on se to m y sp ec i al con cu rrenc e, th e m aj ori ty cl ai m s th at i t i s r el y i ng upon Malle y's statement that"a def

endan t mu st dem

onstra te material

i ty or c olora

bl e need." Sli

p op. at 19. The maj ori

ty ea rl i er cl ai med th at Foutchis

in applic abl e becaus e of wha

t de f en da n t argues rather then what de f en da n t dem onstrates . T he majo r it y fails t o r eco ncile its r at ionale fo r t he i na ppl i ca bi l i ty of Foutch , base d up on t he ar gument s ra ised in Malle y and the case be fo r e u s, wit h w ha t wa s a ct ua lly dem onstrated in Malle

y . T he de fendant in Malle y argued pr ejudi

ce because t he missingrecord was
ne ces sary fo r con sider at ion o n app eal. The co ur t app lied t he neg at ive pr esu mpt ions d esp ite t he defend ant 's argumen

t, because he di

d not demonstrate lack of faul t for the mi ssi

ng rec or d and t he Foutchpres

um pti ons d oome d hi s attem pt to establ

i sh col orabl e need. In co nclusio n, t he es t ab lishme nt o f lac k o f fau lt is d et er mined ba se d u po n st at ic parameters, in dependen t o f colorable n

eed. Colorabl

e need is det er mined by alter nat ivepar amet er s, d epe ndent upon wh et he ro rno t lac k o f fau lt is est ablished. The major ity, by failing to co nfirm the e st ablishment of lac k o f fau lt as t he p re fatory step, i s not se t t ing fo r t h t he law in a cle ar , co nc ise man ne rt ha t is cond uci ve to a pl ai n, s peed y , and ef f i ci en t revi ew. I su bmit t hat t he major ity can't see the forest for the trees. The Foutchrul e i s a pri nc i ple of ap pe l l ate pr ocedura

l revi ew. It ex

i sts i n a ny si tuati on tha

t deals wi th the adeq uacy of the re cor dNo. 2-- 05--0582

-30-

unl ess t her e is an o ver riding rule o rpr inc iple t ha t wo uld re qui rere l ax ati on of th e r ul e. A cc ordi

n g to May er and Maj ka , t he es t ablishment of l ackof fau lt as a pr efat or y det er minatio n wo uld r elax t he Fo utc h holdi ng. Wi thout fi rst determin

in g whether the def

endan t has sustai

ned hi s b urden of est ablishing

la ck of f aul t, any f uture review wi

ll be s ubject t o r evisita t ion in o rd er t o d et er mine whether the Foutchrule sho uld be appl ie d to the colorabl

e need stage . T his is tr ue r ega rd less o f the
na ture of the argu

men t rai sed by the def endan t. The def

en dan t can and m ay argu e a ny thi ng or every thin g, bu t un t il

he sa t isfies his burd en of establ is hi ng l ack of f aul t, neither h

e nor an an al y sis of
co lo r ab le need wi

ll resolve whether the un fav orable pr es ump t io ns o f Foutch o rt he fav o r ab le pr es ump t io ns o f May

er and Maj ka wil l ap pl y. The re is no re po rt ed c ase law o r st at ut e t hat pr esu mes t hat t he l oss of ev i de nc e, m ateri al or ot herwi se, will a ut o mat ica lly re sult in rever sal o f a co nvictio n wit hou t t he co ur t first det er mini ng t he
rea son for t he ab senc e of

the e vi den ce. In f act, t he Foutchrule po sit s t he o pp o sit e c o nc lus io n. T his bri ngsus to t he m

aj ority' s unn

ecessary recitation of

foreign j urispruden

ce. The m

aj ority decl

ares t he followi ng: "In Stark , Ra

mos , and Se als , bot h element s we re pr ese nt : t he de fen da nt 's la ck o f fau lt and t he mat er iality of t he missing evidenc e o r p or t ion o f the re cord to the court 's rev ie w. De f en da n t, by contrast, suggests that a per se rule shoul d obtain: If evi dence prese

nted at trial is mis sin g f

r o m t he r ec o r d o n a pp ea l, t he n t he r ec o r d i s n o t su ffic ien t ly c om pletef or appe l l ate r ev iew
. Ou ran alys is of t he law i n Ill in ois bel ies thi s per se rule. We the ref ore turn to oth er j uri sd i cti on to att empt to discern the roo ts o f def endant's per se rule." Sl

ip op. at 10- 11.No. 2-- 05--0582

-31-

Fi rs t, I disa gree that a fai

r readin g of def endan t's brief would revea

l that de f en da n t su gg ests a " per se " r ule should obtain. Defen dant argue s, "In som

e cases, a b

ys tander's report o r an agreed st at ement of fac t s may suffice ** *. [Cit at ions. ] H ow ever , t hat will not always be t he ca se. " (T he reader may read t he atta ched argument from def endant's brief i

n order t o per so na lly co nsid er t he "su gge st ion" of the rul e.) I subm it that this a

rgumen t is n ot cl ai mi ng that, as a m

atter of law, me ani ngf ul revi ew ca nn ot be ob tai

ne d. May er , the clai

me d source of the righ

t t o mean in gful review and ci ted b y de f en da n t, did no t ho ld

th at th e r ec ord n ee de d to be ver bat im or in its or iginal cond itio n. See May er , 404 U.S. at 194, 30 L. Ed. 2d at 3 78 , 92S. Ct. at 414, quo ting Gr iffin , 351 U.S. at 20, 100 L. Ed. a

t 899, 76 S . Ct. at 591 (" A ' re cord of

suf f i ci en t com pl ete n es s' doe s n ot tra n sl ate au t o mat ica lly

i n to a c om pl ete v er b ati m tra n scri pt. ** * [ A ] St ate

' may f i n d oth er mea n s [ th a n pr ovid ingste

n ograp h i c transcri

pts f or] a f f ordi n g ade qu ate

and ef f ecti ve appe l l ate rev

i ew ** *' " ). All ci ted Ill in ois case l aw com

ports wi th thi s statemen

t. Maj ka , de cid ed in 2 00 6, r ep ud iat es t he alle ge dly suggested " per se " rule
. Maj ka

ci testo Suprem

e C ourt R ule 3 23( c), wh

i ch al l owsthe su bs ti tution of a by stan der' s rep ort when

"no verb atim

transcript

o f t he ev ide nc e o f pr o ce ed ing s is obtai na bl e." 21 0 I ll. 2d R. 323 (c) ; Maj ka , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 368 . S upr eme Co ur t Rule 3 23( d) also allows t he parties to s ti

pul ate to an agree d s tate men

t of f acts i n l i eu of a report of

procee di ngs . See 210 Ill . 2d R. 323 (d). Maj ka

also c i testo Ho pping to refute the al le ged per se rul e: "Our su pr eme co ur t ha s he ld

that t he consti

tut ion does n

ot require som

e particul ar de gre e of de t ail f or a su b sti tute to b e p er

m i ss i b l e. In ste ad , i

t requires ' a re co rd of su ffi cient completenessto permi

t pro per consi deration of the spe ci fi c cl ai ms ma de by t he de fendant .' " Maj ka , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 370, quo ting Ho pping , 60 Il l . 2d at 25 1-52.No. 2-- 05--0582

1 Bo ot st ra pping al lude s to a Germa n legend ab out a B ar o n Mü nch hau se n, who wa s a ble t o lift himse lf ou t of a swa mp by

pull in g hi ms el f up b y h is own hai r. In later versi

ons, he was

usi ng hi s own boot straps t o pull

hi m sel f out of the

sea , whi ch

gave ri se to the

term . R. Ra spe , The Su rp rising Adventures of Baron Mün chh ausen (or Ba ron Mü nc hha us en 's N ar r at ive o f his M ar ve llo us T r av els ) (1785. -32- The differenc e bet wee n Maj ka and t his case is tha t , in Maj ka , t he de fendant expl ic itl y rai sed two iss ue s o n a pp ea l t hat wer e affect ed bythe la ck of a ve rbatim transcript
- - t he alle ge dlyinc r ed ible t est imony of a w i tne ss an d i m prop er c om

men ts m ad e b y the pros ecutor durin

g voi r di re , co ncer ning t he burden of

reasonabl

e doubt. These is sues wer e no t ra ised in a vacuum or raised as a n

ebul ous in tegralpa rt " of th e p ar ti es ' con ce pti on of " th e iss ue of mea n i n gf ul re v i ew , a s c l ai

med b y th e m aj ori ty her ein. See slip op . a t 17. Also in M aj ka , la ck o f f aul t was establis

hed, the Foutchrule was suspen ded, and t he pr esu mpt ions in May er were used to co nsi

der the meri

ts. In this case, t he cla im of me ani ngf ul rev ie w is vacuous. Def

endan t raises the i

ssue of m eani ngf ul review but

does not raise any sp ec i f i c i ss uethe rev i ew of wh i ch wou l d b e a f

f ec ted by the l ac k of a compl ete record. In s

upport of his c laim of l ac k of mea ni ng f ul rev i ew , de f en da nt ref ere nc esonl y a p i ec e of ev i de nc e m i ss i ng f rom t he record. De f

en da n t n ei th er ra i se s n or a ttem pts to ci te an i ndepen dent is sue that would direct our at t ent ion, eve n if Foutchdi d n ot ap pl y , to som e p orti on of

the re cord

and s ome a rg ument t hat might
es tab l i sh err or. F av orabl e p res

um ptions ha ve l i ttl e val uewhen the re i s n othi ng to rel atethe m to. Defend ant i s g

ui l ty of c ircu ito us lo gic r esu lting i n " bootstrapp i

ng." 1 He ha s claimed t hat he is entitled to a reversal. W hy ? Beca use the m is si ng ev ide nce was crucia l. W hy ? Beca use the trial courtv i ew ed

i t. W hy ? Be ca us e i t wa s cruc i al . If

tha t i s h owa colorabl

e need is establ

is hed, then
ev ery tim e a pi ece of e vi den ce is m i ssi ng, th ere wi l l be , i ps o f ac to , a colorable need es

tabli shed. ThatNo. 2-- 05--0582

-33-

hasnot been

the la w, under ei th er Foutch o rit s e xc ep t io ns a s s t at ed in May er and Maj ka . T he
maj ori ty is mi st ake n t o co nc lud e t ha t t his ci rcuitous argumen

t can be properly

addressed b

y f oreign jurisprudence. Assum in g, arguendo , that defenda nt sugg est ed s uch a ru le, t he law in Illinois is clea r, and there is no ben efi t t o be obtain

ed from considerin

g foreign j urispruden

ce. There are si

x Il li nois cases on poin t: Stark , Luke , Ra

mos , Se als , Maj ka , a nd

People v . Cunni

ngha m , 30 9 I ll. App. 3d 824, 830 (1 99 9) . Th

e m aj ori ty do es no t cite t o a ut hor ity for t he pro position that we must o r should address "su ggestions," especial

ly those t hat the co urt raises sua sp on te . As fr amed bydefend ant 's brief and his bo o t st r ap pin g, t his is not a ca se o f fi rst impress ion, and thus referen ce to foreign j urispruden

ce haslit t le b ea r ing up o n t he r es o lut io n o f t his al l eged "su ggestion ." See , e.g. , Tri-G, Inc. v. Burke, Bossel ma n & W eaver , 222 I ll . 2d 218, 267 (200 6) (a case involving a q ues t ion o f fi rst impress ion, wh erethe c ou rt examined fo re ign jurisp ru denc e fo r e nlighte nment a nd dir ect ion and ado pt ed t he approac h tak en by Cal i f orni a an d New York). Assuming further that defe ndan t att em pted to argue somethi

ng other tha n th e re qui redtwostage anal ys is , it was ne ither

a rul e nor per se . De fen da nt ar gu ed t ha t t he vid eo t ap e " is a one-of-akind rec ordi ng tha t ca nn ot be rec rea ted wi th a by sta nd er' s r ep ort or

agree d statem

en t of f acts." Defend ant 's argumen

t is n ot a per se rule b

ut a su i ge ne r is ar gu men t . Co inc id en t ally, t his arg ument was re fut ed in Maj ka : "Our su pre me c ourt h

ashe l d that the c ons

ti tution d oesnot require som

e particul ar degree of detail f or a su bs ti tute to b e pe rmissible. I nst ead , it re quir es 'a re co rd of su ffi cient
com pletene ss to pe rm i t prop er c ons i de rati

on of the sp eci

f i c cl ai m s m ade b y the def endan t.' [Citation.]" Maj ka , 365 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 370.No. 2-- 05--0582

-34-

Defend ant in

correct ly rais ed t he issue of meaning ful review and t he ma jori ty turns i t into a "suggested per se ru l e" /s tra

w m an i n ord er to re ci te f ore i gn j uri spru den ce . Th

e m aj ori ty , ra th er th an de f en da n t, is maki ng th e su ggestion . Th e m

aj ori ty , ra th er th an de f en da n t, re l ate s to f

ore i gn j uri spru den ce

to con f l ate t his un ne ce ss ary rev el ati on . The m

aj ori ty ea rl y on establ is hes wh at the law i

n Il li nois is . See sl i p op. at 1 0-1 1. Th

ere i s n o ne ed to go f urth er. Iron i cal l y , th e m aj ori ty con cl ude s i ts re se arc h of foreign jur isp rud en ce wit h t he fo llo win g s t at eme nt : " Fr o m o ur ex amina t io n o f ca se s in I llino is, as we ll
as those in other jurisdictions that follow sim il ar princi ples, we con clu de t ha t t he rule de sc r ibe d in Ho pping pro vides the general statement o f the law in Ill in ois ***." Sli

p op. at 12. Ill

in ois cas es are co nt ro lli ng (see People v . Human, 331 Ill . App. 3d 809, 820 (2 00 2) ); f ore i gn j uri spru den ce

i s n ot. See Gia nni ni v. Fi rst National

Bank of Des Plai nes , 136 Ill . App. 3d 971, 980 (1 985 ). To t he ext ent that the maj ority's statement equat es the legal eff ect o f f oreign juri sprudence with that o f Il li nois case law, I d isagr ee. I be lieve tha t t he exp os itio n on fo re ign jurisp ru denc e is irr elevant , immate rial, a nd in competent. There i s nothi ng of l egal significance t o be gained by includingt he ex po sit io n in t his dispo sitio n. Fin ally, t he major ity inaccu ra t ely defines wha t t he correct second stage i s or should b e. The major ity first po sits t he st age as sho wing "t hat t he video t ape is mate rial t o d efenda nt 's co nt ent ions
on appeal ." Sli

p op. at 12-13. In the concl usi on, the maj ority rei

terat es the stage as establ

is hi ng "that the vi deotape is m

aterial to hi s contentions on a

ppeal ." Sli

p op. at 19. I subm it that t he proper phrase to de f i ne the se con d s tag e shou

l d i nc l ude the term of art t hat is set f orth in 10 ot her Illi

nois cases. The term

of art is " colorable need." See Appel gren , No. 2--05-- 00 18 , s l i p op . a t 8 (Oc to ber 3 0, 2 007 ); Maj ka , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 370 ; Cunn in gham , 309 Ill . App. 3d at 830 ; Ra

mos , 29 5 Ill. App. 3d at 526 ; Luke , 2 93 I ll. Ap p. 3 d at 139 ; In re Dawn H. , 28 1 I ll.No. 2-- 05--0582

-35-

App.3d 746, 75 3 (199 6); Malle

y , 10 3 Ill. App. 3d at 536 ; Peo ple v. Armst ro ng , 43 Ill . App. 3d 586, 597 (19 76) ; Peop l e v . Robi ns on , 25 Ill. App. 3d 5 2, 5 9 (1 975 ); Se als , 14 Ill . App. 3d at 414
. Co nsider ingt he abu ndant use of "c olo ra ble need " t o d efine this stage, the maj ori ty sh oul d n ot cease i ts use through the creation of an al terna tiv e ph rase . (I ro nically

, t he major ity itse lf m

ent ions "c o lo r ab le need" at le ast ni ne tim es as a term

of art relati

ng to t he second s

tage (sli p op. at 14 (four tim es), 15 (fi

ve tim es)). The correct seco nd stage sh oul d be , " t he de fendant must est ablish a
co lo r ab le need for t he i

tem m i ssi ng f rom th e rec ord ba sed

upon th e i ssue(s) r

ai sed on ap peal ." T his phrase means i ssue(s) other tha n the sol e i ssue raised

herei n, i.e. , t ha t mea ning ful r ev iew is impo ss ible simp ly be ca us e t he r e is so mething missing. T her e must be a c ont ext , o r t he defend ant will m er ely be boot strappin

g, as was done here. Fin ally, I di sa

gr ee wi th t he non seq ui turs con tai n ed i n th e m aj ori ty opi n i on . Th e f i rs t non sequi tur stat es as follows: "Because defen

dant has n

ot ma de even a pr ima fa cie showi

n g th at t he abs ence of t he vi deotape impa irs o ur r ev iew o f t he r ec o r d o n a pp ea l, wecon cl ude tha t the rec ord a s i

t now stands i s suf

fi ci ent for revi

ew." Sli p op. at 14-15. The failure t o p ro ve one

si deof a p ropos i ti on d oesnot prov e the oppos i

te. A n e xa m ple of thi s a xi om is the Scott is

h Verdict. The Scot tish

Verdict ha s t hr ee po ss ible di sp o sit io ns : gu ilt y, not guilt y, and not proven. The "n

ot proven"verdict

is rendered when the ev

iden ce presented do es not est abl ish gu ilt butfails to es tab l i sh

i nn ocenc e. A

noth er exa m ple i s th at the f ai l ure to prov e that G od e xi

sts doe s n ot pr ove that God do es not exi st. The fai lure to prove that t he record is in suf fi ci ent does not pro ve that it i s suf fi ci ent. It merely

establ is hes that the def

endan t has not sustain

ed hi s burden

on review. The m aj ority se rves up i ts second non sequi

tur i m mediatel y thereaf ter:No. 2-- 05--0582

-36-

"The f ac t th at defend an t do es no t ar gu e t ha t t he vid eo t ap e w as ev en in t he lea st bit
ex cul patory or i n con siste n t wi th an y of th e p ol i ce

testi mon y pr es en ted at tr i al l eadsusto conc l ude that i t is not m aterial to the poi

nts h e raises on ap peal ." Sl i p op. at 15. The re is more than one probable

reason why

the argumen

t was not made. On e p r o ba ble reason i s that it does in fact lack m

erit. An ot her probable reason i s that counsel was i nef fect ive fo r fa i l i

n g to pr o pe r ly raiseand a rg ue t he po int, as e vidence d by t he t hre e- pag e ar gument at t ache d. The major ity's
con cl us i on is p ur e s pe cu lat io n, an d I dis t an ce myse lf f rom i t. More to the p oi

nt, i t i s a con cl us i on based upo n a neg at ivepresum

ption conne cted to the Foutchru l e. It w oul d a pp ea r that th e m aj ori ty is appl yi ng a Foutchrule presum

ption bef ore it determi

nes i f the Foutchrule appli

es. The thi rd non sequi

tur stat es: "De fendant has n

ot demo nst ra t ed, even c ur so rily, t hat t he rec ord on appe al i s i ns uf f i ci en t f or our review. Accordin

gly , we concl ude that we m

ay review the record on appeal as i t stands bef ore us." Sli

p op. at 15. T his is a repetition of the fi rst non sequi

tur . It e sta

bl i sh esthe proof of a p ropos i ti on base d up on t he la ck o f p r o o f o f t he o pp o sit e. Ad di t io na lly, it m akes no s ense t o r eview t he r eco rd when d efenda nt rais es no iss ue r elat ing t o t he need to revie w what is contain

ed i n the record. The second i ssue rai sed by defend ant ra ises an argument about what is not in the record, not wh at is . A ny di scus si on regar di ng r evi ew of the re cord wi

th reg ard to the s econ

d i ssue i s un

ne ces sary . THIRD ISSUE " ." Defend ant 's Brie f at 2 (poin ts and authoritie s) (210 I ll. 2d R. 3 41(h

)(1)).No. 2-- 05--0582

-37-

The major ity claims tha t " [d ]e fendant also ar gue s t hat t he evidenc e wa s insufficient t o p ro ve his gui l t of DUI bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt." Sli

p op. at 8. The m

aj ority is m

ore empha

tic on page 15 wherein

it relates, "Defendant als o expl ic itl y a rgues that t he ev ide nc e w as insu fficie nt t o pr o ve his guil t o f DUI b ey

ond a reasonabl

e doubt." Sli

p op. at 15. I di sa gr ee . Th er e is n o i ss ue set f orth in d efe nd an t 's b r ief t ha t r emo t ely r ais es r ea so na ble do ubt as to DUI. There we re on l y tw o iss ue s r ais ed in t he br ief a nd t he y ar e s et fo r t h ve r ba t im above. Addi

tional ly , there are no points and a uthorities s et forth in

the brief that rem

ot el y rai se, expo und upon

, ci te a uthor it y re ga rdi n g, o r a rgue th at th e ev i den ce

wa s i n suf f i ci en t to pr ov e g ui l t. The re is not hingt o s upp or t t he exist ence of t he exp licit ar gument add re ssed by t he major ity as t he t hir d is su e. Su pr eme Co ur t Rule 3 41( h)( 3) re quir es a st at ement o f t he iss ue ( s) fo rr ev iew
. 21 0 I ll. 2d R. 341 (h)(3 ). Su pr eme Co ur t Rule 3 41( h)( 1) re quir es a "su mmary sta t ement , e nt itled 'Po ints a nd A uth oriti es,' of the poin

ts argued and the authoriti es ci ted in the Argum ent." 21 0 Ill . 2d R
. 341(h )(1). Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 34 1( h) ( 7) st at es in pa rt, " Poi nts not a rgued are wai ve d a nd sh al l not be rai sed i n the repl y bri ef , i n oral argum en t, or on peti

tion f or rehe ari ng." 210 Ill . 2d R. 341 (h)(7 ). Defend ant 's en

ti reDUI a rgum en t i s a ttach ed so t h at th e r eader m

ay atte m pt to l oca te wh er ein de fen da nt alle ge dly r ais ed t he iss ue o f gu ilt be yo nd a r ea so na ble dou b t, i n c onf orm i ty wi th r ul esof appe l l ate proce dure or othe rwi se. It is al so in cl uded so that the reader ma y sea rc h for t he element
orel em en ts of the cri me that w ere

al l eg edl y not pr ove n, as w el

l as the ref eren ces to the record

wh ere t he evidenc e wa s insufficient, incred ible, inco nsist ent , impea ched , inco mpet ent , o r e xculpa t or y. The reader may

al so att em

pt t o locate the citations to authority regardi ng al l of the above. The majo r it y re sp o nd s t o my co nc er n by r ela t ing t ha t "[ i]n t eg r al t o t he pa r t ies ' e nt ir e con ce ption of the i ssues on appea

l i s the idea that t he evidenc e wa s insufficient t o s upp or t defend ant 'sNo. 2-- 05--0582

-38-

convi ction be yond a reasonabl

e doubt. Accordingl

y, we are com

pel le d to ad dr es s t his is su e. " S lip op. at 16. I su bm

i t th at w e a

re c om pe l l ed by su pre me c ourt r

ule to refuse to addre ss

an i ss uenot rais ed by de f en da nt. Th e d ef

i ni ti on o f "int eg r al" is

"essen tial to compl eteness." W

ebster's Th

ird New International

Di cti ona ry 117 3 (1 993 ). Th

e m en ti on of gui l t i n de f en da n t' s b rief i s rel ate d on l y to t he is sue of whet her t her e is a co lor able nee d t o mak e fur t her inquiry. T he ment ion o f rea so nable do ubt in t he po st judg ment motion doesnot qualify as an ex pli ci t stat em ent regardin

g whether def

endan t was not gui l ty . M en ti oni n g g ui l t wi th out s etti n g i t f orth in the statement of issues or poin ts and authoritie s and without developing any argument concerning l

ack of guil

t do es not qu ali

fy as ex plic it ly ra ising
an i ss uef orappella te review . Defen

dant does not seek are v i ew of th e dete rm i n ati on of h i s g ui l t. If he did, then

what el em

ent or elem

ents are unproven , and wher e i n(or o ut o f) t he r eco rd is the evi den ce o f i nnocen

ce? The i ssue of gui

lt was n ot properly

rais ed as the basi s f

or establi shi

ng a "colorabl e need," n or was it presented asa separate is sue that we are compel le d t o a ddr ess. If t he iss ue we r e p r o pe r ly ra ise d, it mighthave cured defendan t's circuitous argum

en ts. Howev

er, it was not rai sed
. I f

de f enda n t h as r ais ed t he iss ue o f gu ilt , he ha s d o ne no t hing mo r e t ha n d ump t his "i ntegral part " of the issues on us i

n vi olation of established case law and rules of appel la te pro cedure. Assum in g, arguendo , t hat t he issue is an "int egr al par t " o f the co lor able-ne ed t est , it is waived , a nd we are compel

le d not to address i

t: "De fendant does not identi fy the el em ent of the off

ense t ha t he cla ims w as no t su fficie nt ly pr ove n, no rdo es he in a ny man ne rex pla in ho w t he ev ide nc e w as insu fficie nt t o pr o ve him gui l ty of t his offense beyond a r eas ona ble do ubt . We deem t his c o nt en t io n w aiv ed , as it is d ev o id of a rg ument or cita t ion t o leg al aut hor ity in co nt ra vent ion o f the re quir ement s o f Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le [341(h)(7) (210 Ill . 2dR. 3 41( h) (7) )]. * ** The

appe l l atecou

rt i s n otNo. 2-- 05--0582

-39-

a depos i tory i nto wh i ch a party may dum p the bur den of re sea rch . [Ci tation .] It is

well s ettled that we a re ent itled t o a well-r eas one d ar gument , a long wit h a u th ori ty f or suc h argu men t. [Ci tation .]" People v. Jo hn J
. O' Ma lle y , 356 I ll . App. 3d 10 38, 1046 (2005) (with J.M. O' Mal l ey, P.J., con

curri ng)
. Fi nal l y , the m aj ority makes the f

oll owin g represe ntati on: "The ci rcumstances reported in

the a ff ida vi t concernin

g the loss of

the vi deotape further i n di ca te th at th

e v i de otap e w as

n ot un der d ef en da n t' s c on trol at th e ti me of i ts l oss. Ac co r di ng ly, the re cord app ears to supportthe ide a that defen dant, as a m

atter of historical f ac t, wa s n ot at f

aul t f or f ai l i n g to pre se

rve th e m i ss i n g ev i den ce . D ue

to thi s f ac tu a l ci rcumstance, and n

ot withs tandin g defen dant's f ai lure to recognize the

role of f au l t in his
an alys is of the m

is si ng ev ide nce, the ideal s of justice and fai rness di cta te that we forgo str ict appl i ca ti on of wai ver an d p roc ee d to t he mat er iality or co lor able nee d element of t he missing evi dence an al ys is ." Sli p op. at 17. I di sag ree. The af fi davi t refere nce d above states the f

oll owin g: "[A] vi deo tape of

the traf f i c stop an

d sub seq uen t arrest of

the def endan t, whi ch wa s considered by

the trial judge in this captioned cas e, i s n

ot i n th e p oss es si on of the Of f i ceof t he Ke nd all C o un t y Cir cu it Cle r k, Ke nd all Cou nty State 's A ttorn ey 's Of f i ceorKen dal l Cou n ty Pu blic Defe

nder's Off ic e. A search

by al l pa rties i nvol ved to locate the video tape has been unsuccessf

ul." The af fi davi t establishes

only two t hing s: firs t , t ha t t he t ap e is no t in th e r ec ord ; an

d, s ec on d, t

h at a search by all pa r t ies wa s u nsu cc es sfu l. T he r e is no t hing in the aff ida vi t t o support the concl

usi on thatNo. 2-- 05--0582

-40-

t he tape was lost whi

le "not under defe

ndan t's control." The concl

usi ons drawn

by the m aj ority are non seq ui turs . The af

fi davi t do es not establis

h l ack of f aul t as to any aff ia nt. "[A]bsen

ce of ev ide nce [of faul t] is not evi

dence of a bs ence [of

f aul t]." Pe opl

e v . M ata , 353 Ill . App. 3d 784, 788 (2004) (Mc Lar en, J. , spe ci

al l y con cu rri n g) . Th e b ur den i s n ot on th e S tate to estab l i sh

i ts l ack of f aul t or to establi sh fau lt on th e p ar t of th e def en da n t. It i s th e b ur den of th e def en da n t to es t ab lish la ck o f fau lt
on hi s part. This af

fi davi t neithe r states nor impli

es t hat defend ant is lacking in fault . T he maj ori ty hassubm itted these non

seq ui turs in o r de rt o r at io na lize it s c o mpu lsio n t o ad dr es s t he mer it s o f t his unstated, unargued, and unde vel oped issue
. CONCLUSION A s n oted by Ti mothy P. Te rre l l , prof es sor of la w at Emory Un

iv ersi ty an d le cturer o n legal writi ng, m ost practi tion ers/ reade rs rea d opi ni ons b eca use they ha ve to, not bec aus e the

y wan t to. If yo uco nc lud e t ha t t his o pin io n was unnecess ary, or not worth th e ti me i t too k to perus e i

t, I apologiz e. I bel

ie ve y ou have b een f

orced to read

what shoul d ha

ve be en an unp ubl i shed sum mary order b ase d upon

the b ri ef s f i l ed an d the i ssues ra i sed there i n, or I shoul

d sa y , not rai sed

there i n.No. 2-- 05--0582

-41- APPENDIX BRIEF AND ARGUMENT FOR DE FENDANT-APPELLANT II. Because the loss of crucial prosecution evidence renders the reco rd insufficiently com plete to permit full and proper review, the defendant has been deprived of his constitutional r ight to a direct appeal of

his conviction for dr

iving under the influence of alcohol. The conviction must therefore be rever sed and the cause rem anded for a new tr ial on that charge. Be ca us e t he lo ss o f a c ruc ial p r o se cu t io n e vid en ce r en de r s t he r ec o r d in su fficie nt ly
com pl ete to pe rm i t f ul l an d p rop er con si dera ti on th e c l ai m th at th e def en da n t rai se d i n h i s p ost trial motion - that he was

not pro ved gui

lty bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt (C33) - t he def

endan t has been d epr ived o f his cons t itu t ional r ight t o a dire ct app eal. His co nvictio n for dr iving under t he influ en ce o f alc o ho l mus t t he r efo r e b e r ev er se d a nd t he ca us e r ema nd ed fo ra n ew t r ial. In f in din g the defe ndan t guil ty of dri vi ng unde r the in fl uence of al cohol, the trial

judge
re f er re d to te sti

mon y an d a v i de o of th e i n ci den t. (C 26 ) Th

e v i de o ca n n ot b e f oun d, a cc ordi n g to an af fi davi t by the K endal l C ounty Ci

rcuit Court Clerk. [Appen dix at A16] The i ssue of wh

ether the Defe

ndan t has been deni ed hi s righ

t t o appeal as

a resul t o f an i nc om pleterec ord pres en

ts on l y a q ue sti on of l aw , an d i s th ere f ore s ub j ec t to de novo revi ew. See People v . Col em

an , 183 Il l .2d 366 , 387 (1 998). The I l l i n oi s C on sti

tuti on gu aran tee s def en da n ts c on v i cte d of cri m i n al of f ense s a ri gh t to dir ec t ap pe al. I ll. C o nst . , Ar t . VI § 6
. An ind ige nt de fen da nt wh o pu r su es a d ire ct ap pe al is
en titl ed to a f ree tran scri pt of the tri al

court procee di

ngs . Supreme Court Ru

l e 607 (b). See alsoNo. 2-- 05--0582

-42-

Gri f f i n v . Il l i noi s, 3 51 U .S. 1 2, 1 7-1 9 (1 956 ). M oreov er, "[t] he State m us t f urn i sh a re cord of sufficient co mplet enes s t o p er mit pr op er co nsider at ion o f [t he de fendant < s] clai ms." Pe o ple v. Luke , 323 Il

l .Ap p.3d 13 6,139 ( 1 st

Di st. 1993 )( citing

Draper v. Was

hi ngton, 372 U.S. 487, 499 (1963 )). Accord , May

er v. Ci ty of Ch ic ago , 40 4 U. S. 189 , 19 4 (1 971 ); People v . Hopping, 60 Ill.2d 2 46, 251 -25 2 (1 975 ); Peop l e v . Joh ns on , 327 Il

l .Ap p.3d 25 2, 258 (4 th Dist. 200 2); Pe o ple v. Mal le y , 103 Il l .Ap p.3d 53 4, 536 ( 3 rdDi st. 1982 ). In some cases, a b

ys tander < s report or agreed stat em ent of f acts may suf fi ce i n the ab sence of a verba tim trans cri pt of the tri al

court procee di

ngs . Supreme Court Ru

l e 323 (c),(d); May

er, 404 U .S. at 194;Hoppi

ng,6 0 Ill .2d at 25 3; P eople v .Ram os, 295 I l l .Ap

p3d 52 2, 525- 526 (1 st

Di st. 199 8) ; Luk e, 323 Ill.App .3 d at 139 . H ow ever , t hat will not always be t he ca se. "[W] her e t he gr ou nds o n app eal.
.. make o ut a co lor able nee d fo r a co mplet e t ra nscr ipt , t he bur den is o n t he St at e t o s how t hat only a po rt ion o f the t ra nscr ipt , o r a n 'alte rna t ive < will suffi ce fo r a n effect ive appe al on thos e groun

ds." May er, 404 U.S. at 194
. Accord

Ra mo s, 29 5 I ll.A pp . 3d at 52 6; Pe o ple v.Se al s,14 I l l .Ap

p.3d 41 3, 414 ( 1 st

Dist. 197 3); Lu ke, 323 Ill.App. 3d at 139 ; Mal le y , 103 Ill .App.3d at 536. Her e, an Agr eed St at ement of Fa ct s re late s t he su bst ance of t he t rial t est imony, but t he
v i de o, w h i ch th e j udge re f er re d to i n h i s f i n di n g of gui l t (C 26 ), is m

i ss i n g, d es pi te e f f ortsto l oca

te it. Your Honor s granted appel la te counsel < s m

oti on to co m pe l pr oducti on of th e v i de o or to acc ount f or its ab sen ce. [A ppen di x, a t A15] Pursu

an t to t his Court < s o r de r , t he Ke nd all C irc uitNo. 2-- 05--0582

-43-

cl erk f i l ed an af f i da vi t wi th th i s C ourt, d

ate d Se pte m be r 27 , 20 06, sta

ti ng tha t the vi de o coul d n

ot be f ound [Appendi

x, at 16] The l oss of the v i deo nece ssi

tates tha t thi s ca use be rev erse d an

d rem anded f or a ne w tri al
. Compare Ram

os, 295 Ill .App.3d at 526 ( reversed and remanded f or new trial because post-trial claim of insu

fficiency of evidence pres ented co lorable need for a v

erbatimtransc

ript in or der to aff ord defendant constitutional right to direct appeal ); Se als , 14 Ill .App.3d at 414 ( reverse d and remanded f

or new trial because record reveals colorabl e need fo r a verbatim transcrip t to af ford the def endant ef fecti ve appellat e review of his claims). See also People v . Stark , 33 Ill .2d 616 (1966 ) ( remanded for new hearing on defendant < s motion to sup press confession w

here defendant r

aised s uppres

sion is sue on a ppeal but t

he transcript w

as unav ailable thr

ough no fault of defendant ). The m

is si ng vi deo is the equi

val ent of a m is si ng transcri

pt. Meani

ngf ul rev ie w requires i ts in cl usi on in the record because the trial judge reli ed on i t. (C26) The re is no a cce pt able su bst itu t e fo r t he video of t he incident . I t is a o ne- of- a- kind recording that cann

ot be recreated wi

th a by stander < s re po rt of a gr eed st at ement of fac t s. T he defend ant < s p ost -tri

al moti on cl ai med th at th e ev i den ce

wa s i n suf f i ci en t to pr ov e h i m gui l ty bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt. (C33) Without the vi deo, t hi s Court lacks suf fi ci ent basis to review hi s clai m. The loss of the vi deo deprive s the def

endan t o f h is righ t t o ful l a nd proper direct ap pe llat e r ev iew
. Ac co r din gly, t he de fen da nt r eq ue st s t ha t t his H o no r ab le C o ur t r ev er se his
co nvic t io n, va ca t e h is s en t en ce , an d r ema nd t his c au se fo ra n ew t r ial.