Opinion ID: 2026912
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Allen

Text: The State contends that this court should adopt the analysis in Allen, which was the first appellate court decision to consider the meaning of the new language. In that case, the defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. Before trial, the defendant's attorney informed the court of the change in the rule from may to shall and requested that he be allowed a reasonable period of time to question the venire. The court denied the request, stating that it did not think it was necessary in a case of that nature. Allen, 313 Ill.App.3d at 843-44, 246 Ill.Dec. 751, 730 N.E.2d 1216. On appeal, the court considered the meaning of the change in the rule from may to shall. The court noted that, under the previous version of the rule, whether to allow attorney participation in voir dire was left entirely within the court's discretion. Allen, 313 Ill.App.3d at 845, 246 Ill.Dec. 751, 730 N.E.2d 1216. The court then explained that shall can have either a mandatory or a directory meaning. In Village of Park Forest v. Fagan, 64 Ill.2d 264, 267-68, 1 Ill.Dec. 59, 356 N.E.2d 59 (1976), this court held that shall had a directory reading when it was modified by the phrase whenever practicable. Thus, in Supreme Court Rule 504, the phrase `shall not be less than 10 days but within 45 days    whenever practicable' showed that the 45-day period was not meant to be absolute. [3] (Emphasis omitted.) See Fagan, 64 Ill.2d at 267, 1 Ill.Dec. 59, 356 N.E.2d 59, quoting Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 110A, par. 504. The Fagan court also explained that, where the violation of the rule would cause injury to the public interest or private rights, it is mandatory rather than directory. Fagan, 64 Ill.2d at 268, 1 Ill.Dec. 59, 356 N.E.2d 59. The Allen court did not believe that a public interest or private right would be injured if attorneys were not permitted to directly question the venire because the purpose of voir dire is to assure the selection of an impartial jury and this can be accomplished through voir dire by the trial court. Allen, 313 Ill. App.3d at 846-47, 246 Ill.Dec. 751, 730 N.E.2d 1216. Nevertheless, the court acknowledged that the 1997 amendment to Rule 431 was not an empty act and that the change from may to shall must have had some meaning. The Allen court explained that, under the previous version of the rule, the court's discretion was unfettered in determining whether it would allow direct questioning by the attorneys. Under the new version, while the trial court is not required to allow direct questioning by attorneys in every case, the trial court is to exercise its discretion in favor of permitting direct inquiry of jurors by attorneys, subject to the factors set forth in the rule. Allen, 313 Ill.App.3d at 847, 246 Ill.Dec. 751, 730 N.E.2d 1216. The Second District determined that the trial court had erred by denying the request in the case before it, because there was no indication that the court had given any consideration to the factors set forth in the rule. Moreover, the trial court simply stated that attorney questioning was not necessary, and did not ask the attorney what lines of inquiry he planned to pursue. Allen, 313 Ill.App.3d at 846-47, 246 Ill.Dec. 751, 730 N.E.2d 1216. Although the Allen court found an abuse of discretion by the trial court, it determined that reversal was not required. The court determined that the trial court's voir dire was sufficient to uncover any biases or prejudices of the prospective jurors, and thus the proceeding had not been fundamentally unfair. Allen, 313 Ill.App.3d at 848-49, 246 Ill.Dec. 751, 730 N.E.2d 1216. A noted authority on Illinois trial practice, after reviewing the Second District's decision in Allen and the First District's later interpretation in Grossman, concluded that the Allen rule is reasonable and serves well the interests of both parties and justice and that [i]t should, ultimately, receive the approval of the Supreme Court. See 1 R. Hunter, Trial Handbook for Illinois Lawyers, Criminal § 22:3, at 518 (8th ed.2002).