Court Opinion

ID: 9718638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:28:35.841752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:00.926340
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RAPR dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the opinion. This case parallels People v. Rubino, 305 Ill. App. 3d 85 (1999), cited by the majority. In that case we condemned the discovery violation by the State but found that the exclusion of evidence was too harsh a sanction. I recognize that in this case the defendant had been held in jail at a high bond for 116 days. This factor was not present in Rubino. Yet the trial court had less harsh tools available to sanction the State short of the punishment of exclusion of evidence. In this case, when the State filed its certificate of impairment and notice of appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) (145 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1)), the trial court released the defendant from custody pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(3) (145 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(3)). This same procedure was available to the trial court under section 110 — 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/110 — 6 (West 1998)), in that defendant could have been released on a low bond or a personal recognizance during delays caused by the State’s failure to complete discovery. In Rubino, we urged the trial court to consider the use of Supreme Court Rule 412(g), which specifically states, in relevant part: “[I]f the State’s efforts are unsuccessful and such material or other governmental personnel are subject to the jurisdiction of the court, the court shall issue suitable subpoenas or orders to cause such material to be made available to defense counsel.” 134 Ill. 2d R. 412(g). Cases illustrating the use of a subpoena for discovery focus on subpoenas issued prior to the time of filing the indictment or information, or in cases which are not felonies. See 134 Ill. 2d R. 411; People v. Shukovsky, 128 Ill. 2d 210 (1988); People ex rel. Fisher v. Carey, 77 Ill. 2d 259 (1979); People v. Mitchell, 297 Ill. App. 3d 206 (1998). Although these eases are not specifically applying Supreme Court Rule 412, they focus on the authority of the trial court to issue subpoenas duces tecum to law enforcement agencies which must respond under the penalty of contempt. The trial court and the majority herein characterize the remedy of exclusion to be a necessary tool for the court to control its docket. I recognize the frustration present in this case and several other similar cases in the same trial court with the same drug enforcement agencies. But is docket control the only goal of the criminal process? I respectfully suggest that the pursuit of justice both for the State and the defendant would best be served by continuing the cause, releasing the defendant on bond, and issuing subpoenas to the law enforcement agency pursuant to Rule 412(g) when it appears that the State has been duly diligent in seeking the information but frustrated by the agency’s lack of complete and timely response. Only after the trial court has exhausted other less harsh remedies would I find exclusion of evidence to be appropriate.