Court Opinion

ID: 9715143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:55:36.710256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:31.952605
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I dissent. In my opinion, fundamental fairness requires that the defendant’s motion be treated as a pretrial motion to suppress. The record shows that the People failed to comply with an order to produce the glass from which the latent fingerprint was taken. The circuit court was not advised until the day of trial that it was possible that the glass would be unavailable, and it was at that time that the court indicated that failure to produce the glass would result in the suppression of fingerprint evidence at the trial. The defendant did not waive his motion at that point; it was at the suggestion of the court that the parties proceeded with the case without a definitive ruling on defendant’s motion. To treat the defendant’s motion as a motion filed after the trial was commenced, under the circumstances shown here, is to elevate form over substance. I would, as did the appellate court, treat defendant’s motion as a timely filed motion to suppress the evidence and would, for the reasons stated in its opinion, affirm the appellate court’s judgment. CLARK and MORAN, JJ., join in this dissent.