Court Opinion

ID: 9520577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:44:19.243535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:27.869547
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE STEIGMANN, dissenting: Although I agree with the substance of the majority’s opinion, I do not agree that this court has jurisdiction to reach the merits. Defendant was convicted by a jury of violating an order of protection. Thereafter, he filed a motion for judgment n.o.v., which the trial court granted. It is that ruling that the State purports to challenge in this appeal. Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) (210 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1)) sets forth the limited circumstances in which the State may appeal in a criminal case. The only one that arguably could apply here is the State’s appeal from an order “arresting judgment because of a defective indictment, information!),] or complaint.” 210 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1). (See section 116 — 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/116 — 2 (West 2006)), defining motions in arrest of judgment.) Rule 604(a)(1) says nothing about appeals from the granting of a defendant’s motion for judgment n.o.v., which is closely akin to a defendant’s motion for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s case. In this case, defendant made a motion for directed verdict at the close of the State’s case based upon the same grounds he later asserted in his motion for a judgment n.o.v. Had the trial court granted defendant’s motion for directed verdict, I do not believe the State could have appealed that ruling no matter what reason the trial court gave for making it. This same analysis should apply to defendant’s motion for judgment n.o.v. Although the trial court may have explained its ruling by noting that, in the court’s opinion, the charge failed for technical reasons to state a crime, that explanation does not trump the essential fact that the court’s granting of either a motion for directed verdict or a motion for judgment n.o.v. constitutes an acquittal. Another way of looking at this situation is to note that when the trial court granted the motion for judgment n.o.v., it did not need to provide any explanation. Had it not done so and instead simply said, “Motion granted,” the State would be hard-pressed to come up with any colorable argument justifying an appeal from that ruling. That the trial court here chose to explain its ruling cannot serve as a basis upon which this court can assert jurisdiction that it would not otherwise possess.