Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES PARK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1980-02-07
Citations: 81 Ill. App. 3d 108
Docket Number: No. 77-463
Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES PARK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports, Third Series
Volume: 81
Pages: 108–121

Head Matter:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES PARK, Defendant-Appellant.
Third District
No. 77-463
Opinion filed February 7, 1980.
STOUDER, P. J., dissenting.
Robert Agostinelli and Frank W. Ralph, both of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.
Thomas J. Homer, State’s Attorney, of Lewistown (John X. Breslin, Barbara A. Preiner, and Phyllis J. Perko, all of State’s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People.

Opinion:
Mr. JUSTICE STENGEL
delivered the opinion of the court;
Defendant James Park was tried by a jury in the Circuit Court of Fulton County and was found guilty of unlawful delivery of cannabis in violation of section 5(d) of the Cannabis Control Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 56/2, par. 705(d)). He was sentenced to three years probation conditioned upon his serving 30 days in the county jail. On appeal defendant contends (1) that he was denied due process of law by a pre-indictment delay, and (2) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance.
On July 27, 1977, defendant was indicted for delivering cannabis on September 21, 1976, some 10 months earlier. Prior to trial defendant's motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay and his motion for a continuance for more time to locate witnesses were both heard and denied. At trial Craig Salmon, a special agent for the Multi-County Drug Enforcement Group (MEG), testified that on September 21, 1976, he received a phone call from an informant who put him in touch with another person. Salmon asked that person to save two bags of marijuana for sale to him. Salmon then drove from his office in Peoria to Canton. He met the informant, who took him to a room in Aljeray dorm where he met defendant. After identifying himself as the person Salmon had spoken to over the phone, defendant then handed two bags of marijuana to Salmon. The only persons present were Salmon, defendant, and the informant. Salmon also testified that the MEG director had told him about a month before trial that the informant had been in an automobile accident and was paralyzed and unable to speak. When asked why defendant had not been indicted earlier, Salmon indicated that the informant had continued his work in the Canton area. Salmon guessed that the informant stopped working in the area approximately two to four months after the middle of October 1976.
Defendant, testifying on his own behalf, denied that he sold marijuana to Salmon or the informant and stated that he had been ill and unable to work on the date of the alleged transaction. He was found guilty.
As indicated above, defendant's first contention is that the 10-month pre-indictment delay constituted a denial of due process.
In United States v. Marion (1971), 404 U.S. 307, 325, 30 L. Ed. 2d 468, 481, 92 S. Ct. 455, 465, the United States Supreme Court indicated that under certain circumstances pre-accusation delay resulting in actual prejudice to the defense might violate the due process clause. In United States v. Lovasco (1977), 431 U.S. 783, 790, 52 L. Ed. 2d 752, 759, 97 S. Ct. 2044, 2048-49, the court stated that "proof of prejudice is generally a necessary but not sufficient element of a due process claim, and that the due process inquiry must consider the reasons for the delay as well as the prejudice to the accused."
Pursuant to Marion and Lovasco, in People v. Lawson (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 449, 459, 367 N.E.2d 1244, the Illinois Supreme Court outlined the procedure to be followed when the defendant claims a denial of due process because of pre-accusation delay. The defendant must come forward initially with a clear showing of actual and substantial prejudice. If he satisfies the trial court that he has been substantially prejudiced by the delay, the burden shifts to the State to show the reasonableness, if not the necessity, of the delay. If both substantial prejudice and reasonableness of the delay are shown, the court must balance the interests of the defendant and the public in making its determination.
Defendant contends that the unavailability of the informant to testify at trial constituted actual and substantial prejudice caused by the delay. There is no indication in the record, however, that the informant's testimony would have aided defendant. Had the informant been physically able to testify, he might have corroborated defendant's testimony, or he might have refuted it. The defendant also claims that the long delay between the alleged offense and his indictment made it difficult to remember names and locate witnesses. Defendant has made a showing of the possibility of prejudice, not actual and substantial prejudice (People v. Chicon (1977), 55 Ill. App. 3d 100, 104, 370 N.E.2d 605, 608.) As the supreme court stated in People v. Lawson (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 449, 459, 367 N.E.2d 1244, 1249, a showing of the possibility of prejudice is not enough, and mere assertion of inability to recall is insufficient.
Defendant's reliance on Roviaro v. United States (1957), 353 U.S. 53, 1 L. Ed. 2d 639, 77 S. Ct. 623, and People v. Lewis (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 232, 311 N.E.2d 685, is misplaced. Those cases did not address the issue of preindictment delay, and, therefore, the concepts of actual and substantial prejudice were not discussed. Although those cases might have required the State to make the informant available to defendant as a witness had the informant been able to testify, they do not require reversal of defendant's conviction in the absence of a showing of actual and substantial prejudice where the unavailability of the informant was brought about, not by the refusal of the State to disclose his identity, but by a fortuitous and tragic automobile accident occurring during a preindictment delay.
Because defendant has not come forward with a clear showing of actual and substantial prejudice resulting from the prerindictment delay, the trial court was correct in refusing to dismiss the indictment.
Defendant's second contention, that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance, is also without merit. The sequence of events following his indictment on July 27, 1977, may be briefly summarized as follows. Counsel was appointed to represent defendant on July 28, 1977, and on August 1, 1977, a motion was filed by defendant demanding an "immediate trial by jury." On August 22,1977, defendant filed motions for discovery and for a bill of particulars. On the following day the State filed answers to those motions and mailed them to defendant. A supplemental answer to defendant's motion for discovery was filed and mailed to defendant on August 30, 1977. Defendant received this supplemental answer on September 1, 1977.
On August 30, 1977, the court ordered the cause set for trial on September 13, 1977. Six days before trial, on September 7, 1977, defendant moved for a continuance, alleging, inter alia, (1) that he was not aware of the exact time the offense allegedly took place until September 1, 1977, when he received the State's supplemental answer to his motion for discovery, and that such information materially changed his defense, and (2) that he needed additional time to locate students at Western Illinois University who were his neighbors on the date of the alleged offense. Because of the long pre-indictment delay, and because of the fact that students move quite frequently, defendant said he was unable to find these potential witnesses as of the date the motion was filed. After a hearing on September 8,1977, the court denied the motion.
Defendant argues that the continuance should have been granted for the reasons stated in the motion and also so that he could have determined whether the informant was really hospitalized and unable to speak.
The statutory requirements are:
"(e) All motions for continuance are addressed to the discretion of the trial court and shall be considered in the light of the diligence shown on the part of the movant." (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 114 — 4(e).)
Finally, the statute states the legislative intent that:
"(h) This Section shall be construed to the end that criminal cases are tried with due diligence consonant with the rights of the defendant and the State to a speedy, fair and impartial trial." (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 114 — 4(h).)
This legislative intent was emphasized by our supreme court in the case of People v. Breen (1976), 62 Ill. 2d 323, 328, 342 N.E.2d 31, 33:
"Too, the practice of unnecessarily continuing cases for long periods of time runs counter to the expeditious disposition of litigation and the clear intent manifest in section 114 — 4(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [citation] that criminal cases shall be tried with due diligence."
Defendant's claim that he was not aware of the exact time the offense allegedly occurred until he received the State's supplemental answer to his discovery motion on September 1, 1977, is belied by the record. A police report containing a detailed account of the alleged offense, including the time of its occurrence, was attached to and made a part of the State's first answer to defendant's discovery motion filed on August 23, 1977. Thus, defendant was not required to change the theory of his defense on September 1, 1977, 12 days before trial.
The defendant's defense was that he was home sick on the day when the offense was alleged to have been committed, yet in his motion for a continuance nothing specific about the names of possible witnesses was mentioned, nor about the nature of their testimony should they be found. We believe it noteworthy that the defendant did have available the testimony of David Hammond, his roommate at the time of the alleged offense, but he chose not to call him as a witness.
In claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant him additional time to locate witnesses, defendant relies on People v. Dunham (1929), 334 Ill. 516, 166 N.E. 97, and People v. Bain (1972), 4 Ill. App. 3d 442, 280 N.E.2d 776. The facts in the Dunham case are not comparable with the facts in the instant case for the reason that in Dunham the indictment was returned on November 19, 1927, defendant was furnished with a copy on November 21, 1927, and the case was set for trial on November 28, 1927. Thus in Dunham the defendant had only nine days to prepare for trial while here Parks had 48 days from indictment to trial. Dunham and Bain have been superseded by People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551, 363 N.E.2d 838, cert. denied (1977), 434 U.S. 894, 54 L. Ed. 2d 181, 98 S. Ct. 273. In King, the case was pending only one week from arraignment and appointment of counsel to disposition. Defendant personally demanded trial as was done in the instant cause, but appointed counsel requested a continuance to locate certain witnesses. The request was denied, and the supreme court found no abuse of discretion. The court noted that the witnesses were not identified, that there was no showing of the materiality of their testimony or of the reasonable likelihood they would be found, or that any efforts had been made to locate them. The court also relied upon the fact the defendant demanded immediate trial, and held that the denial of the continuance was not improper. The same factors are present in the case at bar where Parks has failed to name the witnesses or to show the materiality of their testimony. And here Parks has demanded a speedy trial. For a thorough and thought-provoking article, see Bonaguro, Continuances — The Trial Judge's Authority and Responsibility, 67 Ill. B.J. 106 (1978).
It cannot be held that the denial of a motion for a continuance was an abuse of discretion unless it appears that the denial in some way embarrassed the accused in the preparation of his defense and thereby prejudiced him. (People v. Canaday (1971), 49 Ill. 2d 416, 427, 275 N.E.2d 356, 362-63.) A motion seeking additional time to secure witnesses is properly denied if there is no reasonable expectation that they will be available in the foreseeable future. People v. Tyler (1975), 28 Ill. App. 3d 538, 540, 328 N.E.2d 585, 587.
At the hearing on his motion defendant testified that he had returned many times to the trailer court where he lived at the time of the alleged offense in an attempt to locate his former neighbors. He had interviewed the owner of the trailer court and others to no avail. The only indication that defendant would have been able to find the witnesses if given more time was his assertion that he was of the opinion that he would be able to locate them. He did not indicate how he would do so.
Furthermore, the only indication that the testimony of his neighbors would have aided him was defendant's assertion that he was of the opinion that they would be able to provide him with an alibi defense.
He did not specify which neighbors would do so, nor did he describe the alibi defense with which they were going to provide him.
In light of (1) the failure of defendant to specify how he would locate the witnesses whom he had unsuccessfully tried to find many times; (2) his failure to specify what witnesses would provide him with what alibi; and (3) the fact that on August 1, 1977, he demanded an "immediate trial by jury," it cannot be said that he was embarrassed in the preparation of his defense and prejudiced by the denial of his motion. See People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551, 557, 363 N.E.2d 838, 840.
For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Fulton County is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ALLOY, J., concurs.