No. 2-- 06--0353 Fil ed: 7-26-07

______________________________________________________________________________ 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 O gl e C o un t y. ) Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, )

) v. ) Nos. 04--DT- -1 ) 04--TR--15 ) 04--TR--16 ) 04--TR--17 ) JOH N LO NGO RIA, ) Ho no r ab le ) Kat hleen O. Kauffmann, Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEO' MA

LL EY de l i v ered th e op i ni on of th e c our t: The St at e a pp ea ls th e tr

i al cou rt' s or der di sm i ss i n g w i th pr ej udi ce ch arge s a gai n st d ef en da n t, John Longoria, after the trial court decl ared

a m is trial an d f oun d that the Sta

te w asres pon si bl e f or it
. The State cont ends that the re i s n o i nd i ca ti on th at the p ros ecutor

intend ed t o p ro vok e de fendant in to movi ng f or a mi strial

and, accordin

gly , it m ay retry def endan t. We reverse an

d reman d. Defend ant was char ged by compl ai nt with l eavi ng the scen

e of an acc i den t (625 IL CS 5/1 1-- 401(a) (We st 2004 )), dri

v i n g w i th a revoked lic ense (625 ILCS 5/6--303 (We st 2004)), o perating an uni nsured motor v eh

i cl e (6 25 I LC S 5/3-- 707(Wes t 200 4)) , an d dr i vi ng un de r th e i nf l ue nc e of al coh ol (625 ILCS 5/11-- 501(a

)(2) (W est 200 4)), f

oll owi ng a n acci den t on Jan uary 4, 2004 . Def

endan t's j ury t r ial d id n o t be gin un t il

March 6, 2006. On the day of trial , defen

dant move d in li

mine to bar, in terNo. 2-- 06--0353

-2-

alia , ev ide nc e o f o t he rcr imes t hat de fe ndant co mmi t t ed. The t rial co ur t denied t he pr os ecu t or 's request f or a sh ort continua

nce to revie

w the m ot ion, wh ic h ha d n o t pr ev io us ly bee n se rve d o n him. The cour t gr anted t he m

ot ion as i t related t o evidence of def endant's other cr im

es. At tria l , Ch ri stophe r Fa nt testi f i ed th at on Ja

nua ry 4, 2004, he was f

oll owi n g a m i n i v an sou th
on Ro ut e 2 51
. I t ha d b ee n s no win g, an d t he r o ad wa s s lip pe ry. Fan t saw a northbound r

ed ca r, la ter ide ntif ie d as a Mer ced es, cr os s t he centerli ne an d strike the m

in iv an h ead on. The red car "bounced back into t he dit ch, " bac ked ou t of it , a nd took of f . F an t pul l ed upal ongs i de th e m i n i v an to s ee i f i ts occupa nts were a

l ri ght. The d

ri v er sa i d th at ev er y on e w as al ri gh t, b ut a sk ed Fa n t to fol low the red
car. Fant fo llo we d t he r ed ca rfo rab o ut 12 miles un t il it stopped at the Roll

in g Meadows Trail

er Park i n D avi s Ju nction
. Fant pul

le d upb es i de th e red ca r. A man , w h om Fa n t i den ti f i ed as de f en da n t, "poured" hi

m se l f out of the d ri ver's side door of

the re d car. No one el

se w as i n the ca r. Fant asked defend ant why he "t oo k o ff after he just hi t a van ful l of people." De f

en da nt d en i ed ha vi ng done s o. Howev er, Fant dispu t ed t his based on t he damag e t o t he red car. Defen dant refuse d to giv

e hi s nam e. Fant testifi

ed that defen

dant's spe ec hwas sl

urred, he sm

elle d of alcohol, and h

e kept stumb li ng. Defend ant had to hold onto the c ar to supp ort hi m sel f
. Wh en Fa nt to ld de fen

dant that he had t he po lice on t he pho ne , defendan t tri ed to move towa rd a trai l er. Fa nt a nd hi s step son steppe d i n f ront of def endan t to preven

t hi m f rom e nteri ng th e trai l er. Wh en the police arriv

ed, Fa nt a nd hi s step son wer e st ill st anding be t wee n defend ant and t he steps to the trail er. Fa

nt a nd hi s step son then b acked away

to "l et the polic e han

dle thin gs." Af ter the po li ce arrived, defendan

t claim ed for t he f

irst t ime that he wassick an

d ne eded to see a d

octor.No. 2-- 06--0353

-3-

Fan t t es t if ied t ha t t he co llisio n o cc ur r ed o ne mile fr o m Ro ch elle , wh ich ha s a ho sp it al. Ho we ve r , Da vis J un ct io n, 12 miles fr o m t he sc en e, ha s no ho sp it al. Defend ant cal l ed , out of

orde r, D r. A nth ony Niez y ni ec ki , an em erg en cy roo m ph ys ic ia n at Swedis hA me rican Hospital who treated defen

dant on January

4, 2004. Nie zynie ck i t es t ified t ha t his notes ma de no referen

ce to def endan t hav i ng c onsu m ed al cohol that da y . He stated t hat he treated defend ant for peripheral n euro pathy. The recommen ded tr eatment is a

mor phine injec t io n. While the use of m

orphin e for a person wi

th alc ohol i

n hi s sy stem i s n ot co n trai n di ca ted , i t wou l d h av e to be m onitored careful

ly because al cohol tends to enhan

ce the ef fects of the

morphi ne. Niezy niecki t es t ified t ha t de fen da nt init ially g av e h is br o t he r 's n ame when he ar rived at t he
em ergency room . The p ros ecutor

as ke d N iez yniec ki if d efe nd an t t o ld h im wh y he g av e h is bro t her 's
na me rathe

r than his own . Def

en se c ouns el

obj ected a

nd th e tri a l cou rt sus t ained t he o bject ion. Outsi de the jury' s presence, defense counsel argued t hat the quest ion vi olated t he court 's in li

mine order, and he move d fo r a mistr ial. The co ur t denied t he mot ion, ru ling tha t t he evide nce s ou ght was transactional

and, accordin

gly , did n ot vi olate the in li

mine order. The prosecution then resum ed i ts case. Af

ter cal l i ng seve ral wi tne ss eswh

ose tes ti mony i s n ot
re levant here, the State called de fen da nt 's b r o t he r , Ric ha r d L o ng o r ia. He t es t ified t ha t , sho r t ly be f ore Jan uary 4, 200 4, he acqui

red the red Mercedes that defe ndan t was driv in g. Richar d Lo ngo ria left t he
ca r a t h i s b roth er ' s h ous e w h i l e h e w as wai ti n g f or i n su ra n ce an d l i cen se pl ate s f or i t. Richard Lo ngo ria t est ifi

ed t hat his bro t her
-- defend ant -- did no t have p er mission t o bo rr ow t he Mercedes. Moreover, he had n ever gi ven de f endan t perm i ssi on to borrow that car. A t th at p oi n t, defense cou ns el obj ec ted to t h at ser ies o f que st ions. The t rial co ur t sus t ained t he o bject ion and instruct ed the jury to disregard t hose questions and answers.No. 2-- 06--0353

-4-

Ou t sid e t he jur y's pre senc e, defens e co unse l again move d fo r a mistr ial, ar guing t hat th e que st ions violated t he court 's in li mine order bar ri

ng r ef eren ce to other cri

mes. Th e tri al court granted t he mot ion, finding tha t t he que st ions were "extrem el y prejudic ia

l" to defen dant as they

rais ed "t he specter, at least" of def endan t havi ng com mi tt ed another crim

e. The cou

rt told the p ros ecutor that it "ha t e[ d] t o a t t ribut e you r q ues t ions t o ba d fait h," but in l i gh t of t he "p re viou s discu ssio n" ( pr es uma bly

re gar ding Niez yniecki's t est imony), it co uld no t unde rst and w hy he h ad asked tho se questions. In a wri

tt en order issued the f

oll owing da y, the court wrot e that, because the m is trial was "occasi oned

by actions of

the State ," i

t was d i sm i ssi ng th e ch arges wi th pre j udice. T he St at e t imely appeals. The State pri

mari l y conten ds that the tri

al courterred b y

di sm i ss i n g th e ch arge s wi

th prejudi ce. The St at e ar gue s t hat , be cau se d efenda nt requested the mistrial , double j eopardy pri nci ple s do not bar a r etrial unl

ess the prosecuto r's conduct was i nte nd ed to goa d de f

en da nt i nto m ovi ng f or a mistrial. The Stat e mai

ntains that the reco rd shows t hat the pr osecut ion's case was go ingwell and there is no r eas on t he pro secuto r wou ld h ave wanted a mi strial. The Stat e also app ear s t o c ont end that t he t r ia lcourt erred

by decl ari ng a m i stri al at al l and by den y i ng th e prose cutor's

m otion f or a con tinuan ce t o r esp ond t o d efenda nt 's mot ion in li mine . We agree wi

th the Stat e's pr

inci pa l
con ten ti on . O ur re sol uti on of th at iss ue re n dersth e S tate ' s rem

ai n i n g c on ten ti on s m oot. The double

je opardy cl

auses of the U

ni ted S tat es a nd I l l i

noi s Consti

tutions (U.S. C onst.,
am end. V; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I , §10) pro tect a crimi nal defend ant f

rom rep ea ted pros ecutions

f or t he sam e of f en se. W here a c ourt acti

ng w i thout the d

ef endan t's c onse nt de clares

a m i stri al , the c ourt depriv es th e def en da n t of h i s v al ue d ri gh t to have a parti

cul ar j ury deci de h i s f ate. People v . Str eet , 316 Ill . App. 3d 205, 211 (2000). When this happen s, the Stat e should be al

lowed t o re tr y theNo. 2-- 06--0353

-5-

defend ant only

if there was a manifest ne ces sity fo r d eclar ing t he m i stri al
. Street , 316 Ill . App. 3d at 211 ; Peo ple v. Ro che , 258 Ill . App. 3d 194, 198-99 (1994). Ho wever, when the defe ndan t, rat her than t he St at e, moves for a mistr ial, t he de fendant i s deemed to h av e del i b erate l y ch ose n to fo r go his val ued ri ght to ha

ve his gui l t or in noce nc e deter m i ne d be f ore the f i rst tri er of f act. Peo ple v. Ne l son , 193 Ill. 2d 2 16, 220 -21 (20 00) ; Peop l e v . Ca m pos , 34 9 I ll. App. 3d 1 72, 176 (2 004 ). In su ch a case, do ub le jeop ar dy pr inciples do not bar a r et rial unless t he governm ental con du ct i n qu esti on am oun ts to ove rr eac hing, w hi ch i s d ef i ne d ascond

uct i nten ded to goad th

e def endan t in to movi ng f or a mist r ial. Oregon v. Ken

nedy , 456 U .S. 667, 6 76, 72 L . Ed . 2d 416, 425, 102 S. Ct. 2083, 2089 (1982 ). "T his is a

'na rrow exception' that the Suprem e Court ado pted after rejecti ng a m ore general sta n da rd b as ed on a p ros ecutor' s b ad-f

ai th con duc t or h ara ssmen

t of the defendant." Ca

m pos , 349 I ll. App. 3d at 176, quot in g Ken nedy , 456 U .S. at 673-7 5, 72 L . Ed. 2d a t 423-24, 102 S. C t. at 2088-89. General ly , we revi ew the trial

cou rt' s u l ti mate ru l i n g on wh eth er th e p ros ecuti

on wa s g ui l ty of overre ach

i ng u nde r an abuse of d i scre tion stan dard. C am

pos , 349 Ill . App. 3d at 175-76. Howev er, whether th

e tri al cou rt ap pl i ed the prop er l eg al sta nd ard i s a n i ss ueof la w that we revi ew de novo . Ca

m pos , 34 9 Il

l . A pp. 3d a t 176 . He re, res ol ution of the i ss ue s tu rn s on whet her t he trial
cour t applied the corre ct legal standard. Therefore, our review is de no vo . Here, th e tr

i al cou rt di d n ot f i n d, a t l ea st expressly, that the prosecutor in tended to go ad defend ant in

to movi ng f or a mi strial . The court's order st ates only that the mi

strial was "occasi oned by act ions of t he St at e. " Ho weve r, t his is not t he t est . Whe re t he de fendant succ es sf ul l y m ove s f or a mist r ial, double

je opardy does not bar a retrial ev en i f th e b as i s f

or th e m i str i al ca n b e a ttri b ute d to t he State. Pe o ple ex r el. Ro be r t s v. Or en ic , 88 Ill . 2d 502, 507 -08 (19 81) ; Pe o ple v. W i l son , 30 9 I ll.No. 2-- 06--0353

-6-

Ap p. 3d 23 5, 243- 44 (19 99). Thi s i s so because a defe ndan t's righ t t o have the tria

l c ompleted by
a par t icular t ribuna l must be balance d ag ainst t he pu blic'sin terest in fai r tr ials design

ed to end i

n j ust j udgm en ts. People v . Bagle

y , 338 Ill . App. 3d 978, 983 (2003). As one court has stated: "Because of the compl

exi ties of the trial itsel f, som e prosecuto rial

or judici al

error may ine vit ab ly oc cur in a

si gni f i can t num ber of c ase s. To pr eclud e r epr os ecu t ion when ever such
err or re sul ts i n a m i stri al woul d e xa

ct too high apri ce

f or th e def en da n t' s i n terest i n f i n al i ty and acc or d t oo litt le weight t o s oc iety's final inter est in theen f or cem en t of cri m i na l l aws ." Peo ple v. Palmisano , 124 Il l . Ap p. 3d 77 0, 773 ( 1984)
. In Ca m pos , thi s court

affir med t he t r ial c o ur t 's r efu sa l t o dis miss ch ar ge s o n d o ub le je opardy gro unds, fi

ndi ng that a m

is trial resul ted f rom th e prosecuto r's " ' dumb mi stakes,' " rather than de l i b erate overre ach

i ng. Ca m pos , 3 49 I ll. App. 3d a t 177 . H er e, t he pr os ecu t or 's qu est ions appear to h av e b een , a t wor st, mere m

i sta ke s. A l th oug h th e S tate dis putes whether the questi ons vi olated t he in li mine order at all, we will assum e for purposes of thi s appeal that t hey did. The order barred evi dence of ot her cri me s that defen

dant comm

itted, and the questi ons and an swers cl early im pli ed that defend ant had d riven his br ot he r' s c ar w i thou t pe rm i ss i on. How ever, the

f ac t tha t the pros ecutor vi olated t he co ur t 's order does

not prev en t a retri al ab sen t evi den ce of overre ach

i ng. Moreover , we f i n d n othi n g i n th e rec ord

to dem onstra te that the prosec utor's q ues tions we

re in tended to pr ovoke defend ant into moving fo r a mistr ial. The pro secution's case appeared to be going wel l;the evi dence agains t de f en da n t wa s stron

g. Th ere is n

o re as on to t hink the prosecu

tor would ha ve wan ted to start
o ve rwit h a di ffe r en t jury. In resp o nse t o t he St at e' s a r gu men t t ha t t he pr o se cu t io n's ca se ap pe ar ed t o be go ing we ll, defend ant off

erso nly sp ec ula t io n. He co nt en ds t ha t "t he co ld t r an sc r ipt ca n r ev ea l o nly so m uc h onNo. 2-- 06--0353

-7-

ap pe al. The trial

judg e, and t he pr os ecu t or , w er e bo t h able t o o bser ve t he jur or s' facial exp re ssio ns and their reactions to t he ev ide nce, as this cour t cannot ." H ow ever , d efenda nt po ints t o no t hing
con crete that sh ows the j ury wasreactin

g ba dl y to the State' s ca se. We will not affirm the tria l court
on the b asis of

spe cul ati on tha t the court mus t ha ve o bse rve d s o met hing in t he jur o r s' f ac es t ha t is not apparent in

the record. We n ote t hat , w hen a t rial co ur t use s t he wr ong standard in exerci sin g its discretion, the case wi l l be rem an de d to a l l owthe trial

court to appl

y the proper st andard. See Pe opl e v . M cD er

mott , 141 Il l . Ap

p. 3d 99 6, 1009 -10 (19 86) (wh ere re cord i s un

clear a s to the facto rs on whi ch the trial courtre lied in sent encing the defe ndan t, but the tri

al court m ay ha ve rel i ed up on an

i m proper f actor, the trial cou rt w i l l b e d i re cte d on re man d to avo id co nsider at ion o f the impro per fact or ). Her e, t he trial court considered only

that t he m is trial was oc cas ioned by act ions o f the St at e, which is t he wr ong standard. On rem

and, we di rect t he trial

court to consider

whet her t he St at e's vio latio n of t he order in lim inewa s th

e p roduct of

de li be rate ove rre ac hi ng de si gned to goa d de f

en da nt i nto r equ estin

g a mistrial, rather t han the product of prosecu to rial mistakes. As noted, t he State also argues that the trial court should not have decl ared a mistr ial in the fi rst place and s hou ld have g ra nt ed th e prosecuto r's request f or a short continua

nce to revie

w defend ant 's mot ion in li

mine
. The trial

court 's f ai lure to grant a continuan ce is not t he ty

pe of i ssue t he St at e ma y ap pe al ( se e 2 10 I ll. 2 d R
. 60 4( a) ( 1) ) an d, pe rha ps fo rt his re aso n, t he State doe s n ot de si gn ate this argumen t as a se par at e issue . I n any even t, o ur resolution of

the Stat e's pri

ma ry issue re n dersth es e iss

ue s m oot.No. 2-- 06--0353

-8-

The j udgm

en t of th e c i rc ui t cou rt of Og l e C oun

ty is reversed, and the caus e i s rem anded. On
reman d, th e tr i al cou rt i s to ap pl

y th e c o rr ec t st an da r d o f de liber at e p r o se cu t o r ial o ve rr ea ch ing in determi ni ng whether to dis

mi ss the ch arges wi th or without prejudic e. Reversed and reman

ded with directions. McL AR EN an d BYR NE, JJ ., conc

ur.