Court Opinion

ID: 9782469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 18:50:32.077323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:02.862150
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, specially concurring: I agree that materiality is a necessary component of Illinois’ obstructing justice statute (720 ILCS 5/31 — 4(a) (West 2006)). As today’s opinion makes clear, a defendant who places evidence out of sight during an arrest or pursuit has “concealed” the evidence for purposes of the obstructing justice statute if, in doing so, he “materially impedes” a police investigation. 241 Ill. 2d at 149.1 write separately to emphasize that this construction of the statute conforms with the intent of the legislature. The court correctly notes the importance of In re M.F., 315 Ill. App. 3d 641 (2000), and People v. Brake, 336 Ill. App. 3d 464 (2003), in resolving the issue presented. 241 Ill. 2d at 145-46, 150. In M.F., the defendant was standing on the front landing or roof over the entrance to a building when he threw bags of drugs down from the landing and onto the ground in the vicinity of an officer who was shining a flashlight on the defendant, saw his conduct, and recovered the drugs within seconds. The appellate court reversed the defendant’s conviction for obstructing justice, noting: “Under the circumstances, it does not appear that this act was likely to either destroy the evidence or make recovery less likely.” M.F., 315 Ill. App. 3d at 650. In Brake, where the court upheld the defendant’s conviction for obstructing justice, a police officer observed a bag in the defendant’s mouth during an arrest, and the defendant swallowed it. The defendant was transported to a hospital, where the bag, which contained controlled substances, was recovered by police. On appeal, the appellate court rejected the defendant’s argument that his case was analogous to M.F. The court stated: “We are persuaded that there is a distinction between throwing evidence away from the person, as in M.F., and swallowing evidence in the hopes that it will go unrecovered. Such conduct constitutes an attempt to alter, conceal, or destroy the evidence and will support a charge and conviction of obstructing justice.” Brake, 336 Ill. App. 3d at 468. M.F. and Brake stand for the notion that materiality is an element of the obstructing justice statute. It is significant, in my view, that the General Assembly has not seen fit to change section 31 — 4(a) in the time since these cases were decided. Where the legislature chooses not to amend terms of a statute after judicial construction, it is presumed that it has acquiesced in the court’s statement of legislative intent. R.D. Masonry, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 215 Ill. 2d 397, 404 (2005). The materiality component of the obstructing justice statute thus has been part of Illinois jurisprudence for at least eight years, since Brake was decided. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the dissent argues the obstructing justice statute “does not require, as the majority finds, that a defendant actually ‘interfere[ ] with the administration of justice, i.e., materially impede[ ] the police officers’ investigation.’ ” 241 Ill. 2d at 157 (Thomas, J., dissenting, joined by Garman and Karmeier, JJ.). The dissent contends, in addition, that neither M.F. nor Brake precludes defendant’s conviction, and “there was thus no need for a legislative change to render culpable the sort of conduct that occurred in this case.” Id. at 162. With regard to M.F, the dissent insists it is distinguishable from the case at bar, noting that the appellate court majority below took this same view. Id. However, the dissenting justice below believed the two cases were “virtually indistinguishable.” 395 Ill. App. 3d at 567 (Pope, J., dissenting). “The Second District found M.F.’s conduct did not constitute obstructing justice based on concealment of evidence, because he threw the drugs from a rooftop in the vicinity of a police officer and the drugs were recovered within seconds. *** In the case sub judice, the officers were only a short distance behind defendant, saw him throw the objects, and recovered the same, in an open, well-lit area within seconds. Defendant simply did not conceal anything.” 395 Ill. App. 3d at 567-68 (Pope, J., dissenting). I agree in that I believe the two cases are “virtually indistinguishable. ’ ’ With regard to Brake, the dissenting justices argue it is distinguishable from the case at bar and M.F. 241 Ill. 2d at 163 (Thomas, J., dissenting, joined by Garman and Karmeier, JJ.). I agree. That is, indeed, my point. As the court in Brake emphasized, there is a distinction between “throwing evidence away from the person, as in M.F., and swallowing evidence in the hopes that it will go unrecovered.” Brake, 336 Ill. App. 3d at 468. The court continued: “Such conduct constitutes an attempt to alter, conceal, or destroy the evidence and will support a charge and conviction of obstructing justice.” Brake, 336 Ill. App. 3d at 468. M.F. is “virtually indistinguishable” from the case at bar (395 Ill. App. 3d at 567 (Pope, J., dissenting)) but is, as the dissent here states, distinguishable from Brake. The difference between them is that, in M.F., as in the case at bar, the conduct at issue was not “likely to either destroy the evidence or make recovery less likely” (M.F., 315 Ill. App. 3d at 650) and thus did not materially impede the investigation. In Brake, by contrast, the conduct in question — swallowing the evidence— constituted “an attempt to alter, conceal, or destroy the evidence” (Brake, 336 Ill. App. 3d at 468) and did, in fact, materially impede the investigation. Under M.F. and Brake, materiality is thus an element of the obstructing justice statute. Thus, I continue to believe that the presumption of legislative acquiescence plays an important role in resolving this question of statutory construction. The fact that the legislature has not changed the statute indicates to me, at least, that it agrees with the reasoning contained in the authority cited in the court’s opinion today. For these reasons and those set forth in the court’s opinion, I agree that defendant’s conviction must be reversed.