Court Opinion

ID: 9861453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:04:22.679732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:30.406124
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE BILANDIC, dissenting: I agree that it is error for a trial judge to leave the bench during a felony trial without first calling a recess. I cannot agree, however, with the majority’s adoption of a rule which makes such an error per se reversible. In my view, reversal in this situation should be predicated on whether the defendant was prejudiced by the trial judge’s absence. I would find in this case that the trial judge’s absence from the bench caused no prejudice to the defendant and does not require reversal of his conviction. The majority concludes that a rule of per se reversal is required by this court’s prior precedent. To the contrary, this court’s precedent clearly supports a rule that requires reversal only where the defendant has been prejudiced as a result of the judge’s absence. In People v. Berkowitz, 369 Ill. 197 (1938), this court was called upon to determine whether a trial judge’s absence required reversal of the defendant’s conviction. In Berkowitz, during the prosecution’s closing argument, the trial judge left the bench and went into his chambers to prepare jury instructions. While the judge was absent, the prosecutor made comments that the defendant claimed were prejudicial because they implicitly referred to the defendant’s failure to testify. Upon the judge’s return to the court room, defense counsel raised an objection to the improper argument. The judge, after instructing the court reporter to read back the objected-to remarks, sustained the objection and cautioned the jury to disregard the remarks. Berkowitz, 369 Ill. at 203. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial judge’s absence required reversal of his conviction. This court agreed that the judge’s temporary absence was error, but went on to evaluate the record to determine if the defendant was prejudiced by the absence. Finding no prejudice, this court held that reversal of the defendant’s conviction was not warranted. Berkowitz, 369 Ill. at 203-05; see also People v. Bolton, 324 Ill. 322 (1927) (reversal not required where the trial judge was absent during part of jury voir dire and part of closing arguments but was nearby and was available to rule upon objections and other matters). The majority acknowledges the Berkowitz decision, but labels it "aberrant precedent” and declines to follow it. When this court’s prior precedent is objectively reviewed, however, it is apparent that Berkowitz may not be so easily disregarded. Berkowitz did not represent a dramatic change in this court’s precedent. This court in earlier cases had conducted prejudice evaluations when determining whether a trial judge’s absence required reversal. See Bolton, 324 Ill. 322; Schintz v. People, 178 Ill. 320, 325-26 (1899). Even the three cases relied upon by the majority, Meredeth v. People, 84 Ill. 479 (1877), Thompson v. People, 144 Ill. 378 (1893), and Durden v. People, 192 Ill. 493 (1901), support the proposition that reversal is not automatic where a trial judge is temporarily absent from the bench and that the circumstances of the absence should be considered in deciding whether to reverse. A review of each of those cases reveals that reversal was required because the defendant had been prejudiced by the judge’s absence. In Meredeth, the trial judge was absent from the bench for almost two days during arguments in the defendant’s murder trial, and the judge’s place on the bench was occupied successively by two members of the bar. More importantly, order was not maintained in the courtroom. Specifically, the record showed that, during the trial, no bullet had been found in the body of the victim and defendant’s counsel based his argument on that fact. After the defense argument concluded, and while the trial judge was absent, a bystander in the courtroom discovered what appeared to be a bullet in a piece of the victim’s skull. It was established that, during the judge’s absence: "evidence [was] allowed to be handled in the sight and nearly in the hearing of the jury, and that, when the shot was discovered in the skull, it was seized by the spectators, and passed from one excited group to another, and the party making the affidavit states he 'believes that their words, eyes, conversations and excited gesticulations exercised a great influence on the jury.’ ” Meredeth, 84 Ill. at 481. Reversal in Meredeth was thus warranted by the prejudice the defendant suffered as a result of the trial judge’s absence from the proceedings. Similarly, in Thompson, the circumstances of the trial judge’s absence supported a finding that the defendant had been prejudiced by the absence. In that case, the trial judge left the bench during closing arguments, during which time repeated objections were made by the defense. As a result of the judge’s absence, no rulings were ever obtained on these objections. This court determined that reversal of the defendant’s conviction was warranted by the judge’s absence. In reaching this holding, however, this court acknowledged that the circumstances of the judge’s absence will dictate whether reversal is warranted. Specifically, the court noted that a different result might have been reached had the judge, during his absence, remained in a position to pass upon questions raised during the arguments. Thompson, 144 Ill. at 381-82. Thus, Thompson, like Berkowitz, supports the position that a judge’s absence from trial will not always require reversal. The third case relied upon by the majority, Durden, addressed a situation entirely different from that presented here. In Durden, the alleged error was not the absence of the trial judge, but the substitution of a new judge in the trial judge’s place midway through the defendant’s trial. In that case, the trial judge vacated the bench (and, in fact, the county) during the defendant’s trial and took no further part in the proceedings until the hearing on a motion for a new trial. Another judge sat in the trial judge’s place after the trial judge left the bench. On appeal, this court reversed the defendant’s conviction, finding that the defendant was "entitled to the judgment of the judge, who has heard the evidence in the case, and conducted the trial thereof.” Durden, 192 Ill. at 498. This court justified the reversal by noting that the new judge was required to determine what jury instructions would be given, even though that judge had not heard the evidence to which the instructions were to be applied. Additional prejudice was demonstrated by the fact that, during the prosecutor’s closing argument, a dispute arose between the parties as to the testimony of one of the witnesses, and the new judge was unable to determine what the testimony had been. Durden, 192 Ill. at 499. Durden is thus factually distinguishable from the instant case. Moreover, even if Durden were relevant here, the court in Durden clearly considered the prejudicial impact on the defendant in holding that reversal was required. Accordingly, in each case the majority cites as support for its holding that reversal is required regardless of prejudice, there was prejudice to the defendant, and it was that prejudice which justified reversal of the defendant’s conviction. Admittedly, some dicta in Meredeth could be read to suggest that the lack of prejudice would not preclude reversal. See Meredeth, 84 Ill. at 482. Berkowitz, however, post-dated Meredeth by 61 years. In Berkowitz, this, court clarified that a trial judge’s absence would not warrant reversal unless there was prejudice to the defendant. In sum, the majority’s attempt to justify a rule of per se reversal on the basis of this court’s past precedent is unavailing. Our precedent shows that reversal is appropriate only where the defendant has been prejudiced. Moreover, I believe that predicating reversal on a finding of prejudice is the better reasoned approach. Where a trial judge is temporarily absent from the bench but the circumstances demonstrate that no prejudice accrued to the defendant, no justification exists for reversing the defendant’s conviction and granting a new trial. The defendant has received a fair trial, and a new trial would unjustly reward the defendant and constitute an unnecessary waste of judicial resources. A scenario may easily be envisioned where a trial judge leaves the bench for only the slightest period of time, during which time only the most inconsequential of proceedings take place. One such situation could arise, for instance, where, during the judge’s absence, a witness is sworn and asked to state his or her name for the record. To suggest that a new trial is automatic in this scenario without any inquiry into whether the defendant was prejudiced by the judge’s absence is absurd. Yet, the majority’s rule, which deems prejudice to the defendant irrelevant, would seem to require such a holding. I would therefore hold that a trial judge’s temporary absence from a felony trial may be considered harmless error where the defendant has not been prejudiced by the absence. Applying this standard, I would find the error in this case to be harmless. The circumstances of the trial judge’s absence here reveal that no prejudice to the defendant resulted. The trial judge’s absence occurred during the defendant’s cross-examination of the assistant State’s Attorney who took the defendant’s written confession. A total of 11 questions were asked of the witness during the judge’s absence. The text of this questioning is set out in the majority opinion. All of the questions sought to determine the witness’ job duties in the felony review unit of the State’s Attorney’s office and whether those duties included the gathering of evidence for criminal prosecutions. No objections were made by the State to any of the questions until the tenth question. The judge apparently returned to the courtroom moments later, after only one additional question had been asked. Upon his return, the judge immediately ruled on the objection, overruling it. These facts show that the judge was not absent from the proceedings for a significant period of time. To the contrary, the judge was absent long enough only for 11 brief questions to be asked, which could not have been more than a few minutes. Also, the questions asked during the absence were merely background questions, and did not go to the heart of the witness’ testimony, i.e., the defendant’s confession and the circumstances surrounding it. Further, the trial judge remained nearby and was available to rule upon objections. In fact, the judge told the parties, "If you need me, let me know.” Only one objection was made during the judge’s absence and that objection was ruled upon one question later, pursuant to a procedure suggested by defense counsel. It is also significant that defense counsel made no complaint about the judge’s absence in the trial court nor otherwise made any record that anything prejudicial to the defendant had occurred during the judge’s absence. Obviously, defense counsel did not consider the judge’s absence to be a significant event. This circumstance should certainly be considered probative of whether anything occurred during the judge’s absence that adversely affected the defendant’s interests. Presumably, had the courtroom erupted into chaos during the judge’s absence, defense counsel would have noted it for the record. Moreover, as the majority concedes, the evidence in this case was not closely balanced. 174 Ill. 2d at 363. In conclusion, the circumstances present in this case demonstrate that the defendant was not prejudiced by the trial judge’s brief absence. I would therefore affirm the defendant’s conviction. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent. JUSTICE NICKELS joins in this dissent.