Court Opinion

ID: 9719586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:56:33.033595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:08.312590
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE QUINN, specially concurring: I completely concur with the majority’s holding. I write separately to further comment on the problem illustrated by this case. The defendant was charged with the murder of Herman Medina based on the theory of felony murder. The underlying felony was the attempted first degree murder of three police officers. When the State filed its answer to discovery, it filed a one-page form answer consisting of nine sentences. The respondent’s name and the case number of the petition for adjudication of wardship were written in by hand. No assistant State’s Attorney signed the form. It is well settled that the purpose of the discovery rules is to provide the defense protection against surprise and unfairness. People v. King, 248 Ill. App. 3d 180, 186 (1993). However, the State also receives significant benefits from answering discovery. Writing a discovery answer provides an opportunity for a prosecutor to review the police reports, any forensic reports, evidence receipts, and transcripts of any preliminary hearing or grand jury proceeding. The prosecutor can then make a decision early in the prosecution as to what evidence is available, what evidence should be retained and what further evidence needs to be obtained. The instant case was not one of the tens of thousands of narcotics cases arising from street dealing which the State chooses to file every year. We hold that in this case the respondent had a right to rely on the State’s assurance that “all items set forth in [the police reports, transcripts, medical reports and other documents] may be used at trial as physical evidence and will be available for inspection at a reasonable date, time and place upon request.” I believe that the victims in this case were also entitled to the filing of an answer to discovery which demonstrated that someone took the time to read the investigative file. My concern in this regard is enhanced by the fact that, while Northwestern University School of Law’s Bluhm Legal Clinic spent a great deal of time and effort in representing the respondent, including the filing of a voluminous motion to dismiss, the State did not see fit to file a written response in the trial court. Consequently, the trial judge was very much left to his own devices in deciding whether a discovery violation occurred and also in tailoring a remedy. Taking all of this into consideration, however, leads me to the same conclusion as the majority with whom I concur.