Opinion ID: 2021607
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of Review on Interlocutory Appeal

Text: The State first argues the appellate court exceeded its scope of review on interlocutory appeal by extending the suppression order to statements not originally suppressed by the trial court. Specifically, the State maintains the trial court suppressed only a portion of the July 31 statements and none of the August 6 statements and the appellate court erred by suppressing all of the statements. Defendant does not contest the State's representation of the trial court's ruling. Nonetheless, the record does not support the State's position. It is undisputed the trial court originally entered an order partially suppressing the July 31 statements and admitting all of the August 6 statements based on McCauley, but then sua sponte vacated the partial suppression order and continued the matter for additional briefing and arguments. Thereafter, defendant filed a second motion to suppress the recordings based on their inaudibility, and the trial court held combined hearings on the two motions. At the conclusion of the final hearing, the trial court both found the defendant's attorney arrived at 3:14 p.m. on July 31 and the recordings were indiscernible. The court twice indicated it was suppressing the tapes and also stated it could not discern the statements on the recordings. Nowhere in its final order, however, did the court indicate it was admitting any part of defendant's statements or otherwise reissuing its earlier partial suppression order. In light of the trial court's express pronouncement that it could not discern the statements, a reasonable interpretation of the trial court's final order is that it suppressed all of defendant's statements and both recordings. This interpretation is consistent with the parties' representations of the final suppression order on direct appeal. Before the appellate court, the State asserted in its statement of facts that the trial court finally granted defendant's motion to suppress statements in its entirety and granted defendant's motion to exclude the tapes from evidence as inaudible. (Emphasis added.) Thus, the State did not assert to the appellate court that the trial court merely reissued its partial suppression order. See People v. Whitfield, 228 Ill.2d 502, 514, 321 Ill.Dec. 233, 888 N.E.2d 1166 (2007) (taking judicial notice of the arguments raised in the parties' respective briefs below). In stark contrast to its position in the appellate court, however, the State now contends that the trial court reissued its partial suppression order, admitting a portion of the July 31 statements and all of the August 6 statements. Based on this latest representation, the State argues the appellate court exceeded its scope of review by extending the suppression ruling to all of defendant's statements. The appellant bears the burden of presenting an adequate record to support its claim of error. People v. Deleon, 227 Ill.2d 322, 342, 317 Ill.Dec. 843, 882 N.E.2d 999 (2008). Any doubts stemming from an inadequate record will be construed against the appellant. People v. Lopez, 229 Ill.2d 322, 344, 323 Ill.Dec. 55, 892 N.E.2d 1047 (2008); In re Marriage of Gulla, No. 106612, 2009 WL 1578521, ___ Ill.2d ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (May 21, 2009). Thus, the State, as the appellant, had the burden of presenting a record sufficient to support its claim of error, and any insufficiencies must be resolved against it. Here, the record demonstrates the trial court's final oral suppression order did not even distinguish between the July 31 statements and the August 6 statements, let alone allow part of those statements. Therefore, this record does not support the State's current characterization of the final suppression order. Constrained by the record and the State's conflicting characterizations of that order, we necessarily conclude the trial court suppressed all of the statements and both recordings. Accordingly, the appellate court did not exceed its scope of review on interlocutory appeal as the State claims.