Opinion ID: 2238611
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Circuit Court's Violation of Section 106D-1

Text: As a final argument, defendant contends that the circuit court of Kankakee County, where the proceedings in this case took place, had no authority to conduct any pretrial or post-trial proceedings by closed circuit television because the court failed to fulfill its statutory duty to set out, by rule or order, the type of proceedings that could be conducted by closed circuit television. As noted earlier, section 106D-1(a) of the Code provides that a court may allow the defendant to personally appear at any pre-trial or post trial proceeding by way of closed circuit television when    the court has authorized the use of closed circuit television and has by rule or order set out the type of proceedings that may be conducted by closed circuit television   . 725 ILCS 5/106D-1(a) (West 1998). The appellate court found that the record failed to disclose whether the circuit court complied with its statutory duty to promulgate rules or orders concerning the use of closed circuit television. See 309 Ill.App.3d at 1035, 243 Ill.Dec. 538, 723 N.E.2d 841. However, defendant asks that this court take judicial notice of the published Uniform Rules of Practice for the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit, which he has appended to his brief on appeal, as evidence that the circuit court failed to fulfill its duty. We agree that it is appropriate to take judicial notice of the circuit court's published rules. See Murdy v. Edgar, 103 Ill.2d 384, 394, 83 Ill.Dec. 151, 469 N.E.2d 1085 (1984) (courts may take judicial notice of matters which are commonly known). Further, we agree that the rules do not evidence the court's compliance with the statutory directive. The State offers no argument on the subject. Thus, we must assume that defendant is correct and that the circuit court has failed to fulfill its statutory duty to formally authorize the use of closed circuit television by setting forth rules or orders as to the types of proceedings that may be conducted by closed circuit television. We are disturbed by the circuit court's laxity and caution that courts must discharge their responsibility to promulgate rules as required by section 106D-1 of the Code. Nevertheless, we are constrained by the procedural posture of this case to find that the error does not require reversal. There is no plain error. Defendant was not deprived of a substantial right because of the circuit court's failure to adopt rules.