Illinois Official Reports

Appellate Court

People v. Presa, 2014 IL App (3d) 130255

Appellate Court 

Caption

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 

BRUNO PRESA, Defendant-Appellant.

District & No. Third District

Docket No. 3-13-0255

Rule 23 Order filed

Motion to publish

allowed

Opinion filed

November 14, 2014

December 18, 2014

December 18, 2014

Held

(Note: This syllabus 

constitutes no part of the 

opinion of the court but 

has been prepared by the 

Reporter of Decisions 

for the convenience of 

the reader.)

Defendant’s conviction for possession of syringes under the 

Hypodermic Syringes and Needles Act based on his possession of 

nearly 500 used and uncapped hypodermic syringes was reversed on 

the ground that defendant was a card-holding member of the Chicago 

Recovery Alliance, a “needle exchange” program intended to slow the 

spread of human immunodeficiency virus among intravenous drug 

users and defendant fell within the statutory exemption allowing 

persons engaged in “scientific research” to possess more than 20 

hypodermic needles, since the “needle exchange” program was an 

entity engaged in scientific research.

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County, No. 11-CM-3893; the 

Hon. Carmen Goodman, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Reversed.
- 2 -

Counsel on

Appeal

Michael J. Pelletier and Editha Rosario-Moore, both of State 

Appellate Defender’s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.

James Glasgow, State’s Attorney, of Joliet (Mark A. Austill, of State’s 

Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

Panel JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court, with 

opinion.

Justices Holdridge and Wright concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 Defendant, Bruno Presa, was charged with one count of possession of syringes under 

section 1 of the Hypodermic Syringes and Needles Act (Act) (720 ILCS 635/1 (West 2010)), 

when he was found in possession of approximately 500 used and uncapped hypodermic 

syringes in a cardboard box in his bedroom. Defendant was a card-holding member of the 

Chicago Recovery Alliance (CRA), a “needle exchange” program that aims to slow the spread 

of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) among intravenous drug users. At a bench trial, 

defendant argued that he met the statutory exemption for a person engaged in “scientific 

research,” through his participation in CRA’s program. See 720 ILCS 635/1(a) (West 2010).

The court found defendant guilty. Defendant appeals, arguing the evidence was insufficient to 

prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The State concedes, and we reverse.

¶ 2 FACTS

¶ 3 Defendant was charged by information with “Unlawful Possession of Hypodermic Syringe 

or Needle” under section 1 of the Act (720 ILCS 635/1 (West 2010)). The charging 

information alleged:

“[D]efendant, knowingly and unlawfully had in his possession an instrument, namely a 

hypodermic syringe and needle, or any other instrument so adapted for the use of 

controlled substances by subcutaneous injection and the defendant was not in 

possession of such aforementioned instrument by reason of or during the course of his 

official duties, and the defendant was not in possession of such aforementioned 

instrument acting under the direction of a medical doctor, dentist or hospital supervisor 

***.”

Section 1 reads:

“(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), no person, not being *** a person 

engaged in chemical, clinical, pharmaceutical or other scientific research, shall have 

in his possession a hypodermic syringe, hypodermic needle, or any instrument adapted 

for the use of controlled substances or cannabis by subcutaneous injection.
- 3 -

(b) A person who is at least 18 years of age may purchase from a pharmacy and 

have in his or her possession up to 20 hypodermic syringes or needles.” (Emphasis 

added.) 720 ILCS 635/1 (West 2010).

Section (b), along with the part of section (a) referencing it, was added by the legislature in 

2003. Pub. Act 93-392 (eff. July 25, 2003). The amendment was characterized as a public 

health initiative, which, by “decriminaliz[ing] the possession of up to twenty sterile 

hypodermic needles and syringes,” aimed to reduce the transmission of HIV and other diseases 

by intravenous drug users. 93d Ill. Gen. Assem., Senate Proceedings, March 24, 2003, at 78 

(statements of Senator Trotter).

¶ 4 Defendant bonded out of jail on a $100 personal recognizance bail bond. His bail bond 

contract listed six conditions of bond, none of which mentioned drug screenings. Defendant 

entered a plea of not guilty at his arraignment, explaining that he was a member of “the needle 

exchange program.”

¶ 5 At the first pretrial hearing, defendant appeared pro se. The court stated that “as a condition 

of your bond, you were to be drug tested today.” Defendant said he was unaware of that 

requirement and had not yet been drug tested. Defendant requested that the court dismiss the 

charge because “I have a card for legal possession of what I got arrested for.” The court stated, 

“That’s probably a defense,” but explained that defendant needed counsel and, first of all, 

needed to be drug tested. The court appointed a public defender and ordered defendant 

downstairs for a drug screening. The court explained, “I test everybody who has these type of 

cases.”

¶ 6 On March 14, 2013, the case proceeded to a bench trial. Pretrial, the State stipulated to two 

defense exhibits. The first was a special order from the Chicago police department (CPD) 

regarding CRA. The special order stated that CRA personnel and participants in the needle 

exchange program met the statutory exemption for scientific research under section 1 of the 

Act. The order directed CPD officers not to arrest CRA program participants for possession of 

hypodermic syringes. The second exhibit was a special order from the Joliet police department, 

directing its officers not to arrest participants of a similar needle exchange program for 

possession of syringes.

¶ 7 The defense called Dan Bigg, director of CRA. Bigg explained that CRA is a 21-year-old 

nonprofit organization that aims to study and reduce the spread of HIV and hepatitis B and C.

When participants interact with CRA to receive services, CRA asks them questions that are 

recorded and used for research purposes. Its members are given coded identification cards; 

cardholder names are not collected or stored by CRA. Bigg testified that defendant had a valid 

CRA card and was considered a current participant in CRA’s research program.

¶ 8 Gregg Scott testified that he is an associate professor of sociology at DePaul University 

who studies HIV and drug use. The data collected through CRA’s questioning of participants is 

stored and analyzed at DePaul’s science research center. On cross-examination, Scott stated 

that participants may take as many clean needles as they want, and there is no requirement that 

they must exchange dirty needles to receive clean ones. According to Scott, “putting 

limitations on the number of syringes actually contributes to the flourishing of HIV.”

¶ 9 The court ultimately determined that defendant’s CRA participant card did not in itself 

establish that defendant was a person engaged in scientific research under the Act. The court 

found defendant guilty.
- 4 -

¶ 10 The court asked whether the parties were ready to proceed to sentencing. Defense counsel 

requested a continuance to gather and prepare mitigating evidence. The court denied that 

request: “Okay. Well, this is a 2011 case. I will give you five minutes.” The court sentenced 

defendant to 90 days in jail, 24 months’ conditional discharge, and fines and costs of $200.

Defendant appeals.

¶ 11 ANALYSIS

¶ 12 On appeal, defendant, again, argues that because of his participation in CRA’s program, he 

met the statutory exemption for a person engaged in scientific research. The State concedes 

that defendant’s conviction must be reversed.

¶ 13 Under the statute, anyone 18 years of age or older may possess up to 20 needles. To legally 

possess more than 20 needles, the person or entity must meet one of the exemptions listed in 

subsection (a). In the present case, defendant claimed he met the exemption for “a person 

engaged in *** scientific research.” 720 ILCS 635/1(a) (West 2010). The State conceded–and 

the evidence overwhelmingly established–that CRA was an entity engaged in scientific 

research. The legislature decided that it was sound public policy to allow the possession of up 

to 20 syringes for anyone and more than 20 syringes for those engaged in scientific research. It 

is not the role of the courts to question that policy decision.

¶ 14 Clinical scientific research, by definition, requires not only scientific researchers, but also 

participants or patients. Dan Bigg, the director of CRA, testified that defendant possessed a 

valid CRA card; Bigg considered defendant a current participant in CRA’s research program.

On appeal, the State concedes that defendant was, for purposes of the Act, engaged in scientific 

research. No reasonable trier of fact could have found defendant guilty based upon the 

evidence presented at trial. The State confesses error. We reverse defendant’s conviction.

¶ 15 CONCLUSION

¶ 16 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Will County is reversed.

¶ 17 Reversed.