Court Opinion

ID: 9737651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:31:30.264694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:00.482384
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE CLARK, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes that a violation of section 112 — 6(a) is insufficient to dismiss an indictment absent a special showing of prejudice to the defendant. Specifically, the defendant must show evidence that the purposes of the secrecy requirement were not met, or that the indictment was obtained as a result of undue influence or coercion (153 Ill. 2d at 55-56). Because I feel that a violation of section 112 — 6(a) inherently results in substantial injustice to a defendant, I disagree and favor a per se rule of dismissal. I intimate no view upon whether such a rule is applicable to a violation of any of the other subsections of article 112 and confine my thoughts to section 112 — 6(a) only. At the outset, it must be appreciated that the veil of secrecy surrounding a grand jury proceeding is a fundamental element of a grand jury investigation. (People v. Munson (1925), 319 Ill. 596, 603.) To this end the law refuses to permit one in the presence of the grand jury during the investigation who is not legally and properly before it. Most certainly the veil is not impenetrable. Section 112 — 6(a) provides that a court may authorize the presence of someone other than the State’s Attorney or a court reporter at the proceedings. In such instances, the court has heard a request for authorization and has weighed the possibility of undue influence or coercion and has made the tacit finding that the danger of either occurring is not present. 213 Ill. App. 3d at 45-46. Where an unauthorized person is present at the proceedings, however, no such finding has been made. The unauthorized individual’s presence alone is a violation of the secrecy required in a grand jury proceeding, and to require that the records of the proceeding establish undue influence “kills the very statute that prohibits the unauthorized presence of persons other than a State’s Attorney and a court reporter.” 213 Ill. App. 3d at 46. The majority relies on two of this court’s opinions in support of refusing to dismiss the indictment against defendant. I believe that both opinions are distinguishable. In People v. Munson (1925), 319 Ill. 596, this court reversed a circuit court order denying a motion to quash an indictment in which the State’s Attorney appearing before the grand jury was not a licensed attorney. The opinion concludes that the State’s Attorney’s participation in the grand jury proceeding prejudiced the defendant in that the indictment was “procured directly” by the unlicensed attorney. Munson, 319 Ill. at 604. The prejudice to the defendant’s interests was a consequence of the proceeding itself, conducted by one unqualified to do so. The State’s Attorney did not have the power to bring the indictment. The interests of the defendant were prejudiced, therefore, by the conduct of the State’s Attorney, not simply his presence at the proceeding. In Munson, therefore, this court concluded that because the indictment was improperly procured, the entire proceeding was vitiated. This conclusion was reached without any demonstration of actual prejudice to the defendant. Although language in Munson appears to support the majority opinion (Munson, 319 Ill. at 604; 153 Ill. 2d at 53-54), I note that this language was simply dicta and did not control the outcome of the case. In People v. Arnold (1910), 248 Ill. 169, the second opinion relied on by the majority, the defendant was charged by indictment with raping a 15-year-old girl. The girl and her parents were witnesses at the grand jury proceeding. All three were present in the grand jury room at the time each was being examined. Arnold, 248 Ill. at 171-72. There again, this court observed that among the most important protections provided by the grand jury proceeding is the guarantee of secrecy. “The proceedings before a grand jury must be kept strictly secret, and that could not be done if witnesses should be present during examination of each other. The rule, therefore, is, that one witness must never be permitted to be present at the examination of another.” (Emphasis added.) (Arnold, 248 Ill. at 171-72.) Although this court stated that the witness’ simultaneous presence in the grand jury room was in violation of the rule that one witness must never be permitted to -be present at the examination of the other, it concluded that the violation was not “substantial,” as the charge was proven through the testimony of other witnesses. Any influence the testimony of the parents or the girl had on the other was harmless in light of the testimony of the remaining witnesses. While the circumstances in Arnold are relatively similar to the ones presently before this court, the issues addressed are entirely distinct. The parents of the young girl in Arnold were witnesses in the grand jury proceeding and were present at the proceedings. The issue in Arnold was not whether the witness’ presence was authorized, but was simply the timing of the individuals’ presence — Was the fact that these three witnesses were present during examination of each other sufficient to quash the indictment? In the present matter, the victim’s mother was not authorized to attend the grand jury session, yet she was present during her daughter’s examination. The rule that was violated, therefore, was not the same as that in Arnold. Here, the concern is not the presence of a witness during the examination of another but, rather, the presence of an unauthorized individual during a grand jury session. In my opinion, substantial injustice is inherent and should be presumed where there is a violation of section 112 — 6(a). The majority concludes otherwise and notes that there was no showing that the presence of the victim’s mother endangered the secrecy of the proceeding or that her presence influenced her daughter’s testimony or the grand jury’s decision. As to the former argument, I believe that defendant’s interests were prejudiced by reason of the appearance of the mother. As I have stated above, grand jury proceedings are surrounded by secrecy. The protections afforded by this precaution are forfeited by the mere presence of an unauthorized individual at the proceeding. I believe that the unauthorized presence of an individual at a grand jury proceeding, without more, is enough to vitiate the indictment. As to the evidence of undue influence or coercion, the majority concludes that the mother provided only emotional support. (153 Ill. 2d at 56.) However, to the extent that the presence of the mother demonstrated a tacit substantiation of her daughter’s testimony, I believe the jury could not help but be silently influenced. Although it may be expected or, at least, not unusual for a mother to believe the word of her child and offer that child her support, it is not insignificant that the daughter’s testimony was that of the complainant, not simply a witness for the prosecution. The daughter’s testimony was crucial to the indictment; therefore, the danger of the mother’s presence as an influence on the jury was all the more significant. I would hold that the unauthorized presence of any person before a grand jury requires that the indictment handed down by that jury be quashed. JUSTICES BILANDIC and FREEMAN join in this dissent.