Court Opinion

ID: 9535954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:47:13.601657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:23.815327
License: Public Domain

Supplement to Opinion on Denial of Petition for Rehearing On petition for rehearing, the defendant strenuously contends that “the complaint failed to set forth the nature and elements of the offense of driving while license revoked in that it failed to allege that with respect to each element described by the statute defining the offense of driving while license revoked, the defendant acted while having one of the mental states required by the Criminal Code of 1961.” The complaint is set forth verbatim in the opinion. The rationale of the defendant is that: “A ‘charge’ is defined as ‘a written statement presented to a court accusing a person of the commission of an offense and includes (a) complaint . . . .’ (Ill Rev Stats, c 38, § 102-8 (1967). “ ‘Offense’ is defined as ‘violation of any penal statute of this State . . . .’ (Ill Rev Stats, c 38, § 102-15 (1967). (Emphasis added.) “The phrase ‘penal statute’ is not defined by the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963; however, that phrase has been defined ... in Superior Laundry & Linen Supply Co. v. Edmanson-Bock Caterers, Inc., 11 Ill App2d 132, at 134, 136 NE2d 610 (1956), as follows: “A penal statute is defined to be ‘one which imposes a forfeiture or penalty for transgressing its provisions, or for doing a thing prohibited.’ (Potter’s Dwarris on Statutes, p 74.) A penalty ‘is in the nature of punishment for the non-performance of an act or for the performance of an unlawful act. It involves the idea of punishment, whether enforced by a civil or criminal procedure.’ ”; that section 6-303 is a penal statute; that under section 111-3 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint must set forth the nature and elements of the offense charged; and that the complaint failed to allege an essential element of the offense; namely, that the defendant acted either “intentionally,” “knowingly,” “recklessly,” or “negligently.” He further argues that section 4-9 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill Rev Stats 1967, c 38, § 4-9) sets forth specific tests by which the courts of Illinois are to determine whether an offense is one which involves absolute liability; that section 4-9 provides: “A person may be guilty of an offense without having, as to each element thereof, one of the mental states described in Sections 4-4 through 4-7 if the offense is a misdemeanor which is not punishable by incarceration or by a fine exceeding $500, or the statute defining the offense clearly indicates a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability for the conduct described.” (Emphasis added.); and that the first test requires a determination of whether the offense is a misdemeanor which is not punishable by incarceration or by a fine exceeding $500; that a “misdemeanor” is defined as “any offense other than a felony. . . .” (Ill Rev Stats 1967, c 38, § 2-11); that a “felony” is defined as “an offense punishable with death or by imprisonment in the penitentiary” (Ill Rev Stats 1967, c 38, § 2-7); that since a violation of section 6-303 of the Motor Vehicle Act is punishable by imprisonment for not less than seven days nor more than one year and in addition by a fine of not more than $1,000, the offense is a misdemeanor; that under section 4-9 of the Criminal Code, a person may not be guilty of this offense without having as an element thereof, one of the mental states described in sections 4-4 through 4-7 unless the statute defining the offense clearly indicates a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability for the conduct described, and that such legislative purpose is not clearly indicated in section 6-303. The Committee Comments with reference to section 4-9 of the Criminal Code, set forth in SHA ch 38, pages 186 through 188, relate the problems attendant upon drafting the sections of the Criminal Code pertaining to mental state requirements and absolute liability. At page 188, the Committee Comments state: “A very unsatisfactory situation thus existed in Illinois: numerous provisions appeared which were absolute in language; only a few of them had been interpreted as to their mental-state requirements; many of the remainder were felonies, or misdemeanors punishable by incarceration or severe fine; and no adequate rule existed for determining whether a particular provision, not yet interpreted by the courts, was to be regarded as implying a mental-state element or as imposing absolute liability. (The usual methods of interpretation are summarized in Remington, ‘Liability Without Fault Criminal Statutes,’ 1956 Wis L Rev 625, 629-32.) “Section 4-9 represents only a partial solution of the problem—a general restrictive rule of interpretation. Another part of the solution is in the rephrasing of the Code provisions which define the specific offenses, to indicate clearly the intended mental-state elements, and the offenses in which mental state, for some cogent policy reason, is not an element. “The first part of section 4-9 recognizes the type of offense which carries so little culpability that incarceration is not a part of the penalty, and the fine is less than $500. As indicated above, nearly one-third of the former Illinois code provisions which did not express mental state were in this category, as were many of the penal provisions appearing outside of the Code. In view of the difficulty of enforcing such provisions if mental state must be proved in each instance, the assumption seems proper that in these instances the omission of such a requirement is intended to create absolute liability. (See Model Penal Code Sec 2.05, comment at 145 (Tent Draft No. 4, 1955); Sayre, ‘Public Welfare Offenses,’ 33 Col L Rev 55, 68-72, 78-79 (1933).) “In addition to permitting a construction requiring absolute liability in offenses punishable by incarceration or by a fine of not more than $500, the second part of section 4-9 expresses the policy that in other offenses not including a mental state in the definition only a clearly indicated legislative intent to create absolute liability should be recognized, and in all other instances, a mental-state requirement should be implied as an application of the general rule that an offense consists of an act accompanied by a culpable mental state, as expressed in Section 4-3. (See Model Penal Code, sec 2.05, comment at 145-6 (Tent Draft No. 4, 1955); Sayre, supra at 68-72, 79-83.)” Section 6-303 is not a part of the Criminal Code. Consequently, it was not redrafted, along with other sections of the Code, to reflect legislative intent of absolute liability. The section is legislation of a regulatory, police and public welfare nature which involves the violation of laws pertaining to motor vehicles and safety. Subsection (b) of section 6-303 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Ill Rev Stats 1967, c 95%, par 6-303 (b)), provides: “The Secretary of State upon receiving a report of the conviction of any person under this Section upon a charge of driving a vehicle while the license or permit or privilege of such person was suspended, except as may be allowed by a restricted driving permit issued under this Act, or upon receiving a report of the conviction of any person of any violation indicating said person was operating a motor vehicle during the time when said person’s license, permit or privilege was suspended, shall extend the period of such suspension for an additional like period, and if the period of suspension has then expired, the Secretary of State shall be authorized to suspend said person’s license or permit or privilege for the same period of time as the suspension which had expired, and if the conviction was upon a charge of driving while a license or permit or privilege was revoked, except as may be allowed by a restricted driving permit issued under this Act, or if the conviction was upon a charge which indicated that a vehicle was operated during the time when the license, permit or privilege of said person was revoked, the Secretary of State shall not issue a license for an additional period of 1 year from the date of conviction if such conviction was obtained after the date such person would have been entitled to apply for a new license.” This subsection clearly manifests a legislative intent to further restrict the erring driver and to protect the safety of the public by the additional restrictions therein imposed. Such provision manifests a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability for the conduct described in subsection 6-303 (a). In People v. Jensen, 24 Ill App2d 302, 164 NE2d 228 (1960), the court pertinently construed this section in these words: “The offense under the statute, so far as material, is driving a motor vehicle on a highway at a time when the operator’s license is revoked—the particular distance the defendant may have so driven under such circumstances is immaterial so far as commission of the offense is concerned. The particular intent, knowledge, moral turpitude, if any, or purity of motive, if any, of the defendant are also immaterial on the question of guilt under this particular statute: Cf. People v. Player (1941), 377 Ill 417. Price v. People (1884) 109 Ill 109, referred to by the defendant, did not involve the present statute or the present offense.” The Criminal Code was enacted after the Jensen opinion was filed. Generally, a statute should not be construed to effect a change in settled law of the state unless its terms clearly require such construction. People v. Bernette, 30 Ill2d 359, 374, 197 NE2d 436 (1964); Sternberg Dredging Co. v. Estate of Sternberg, 10 Ill2d 328, 333, 334, 140 NE2d 125 (1957). The terms of section 6-303 (a) do not indicate the implication of a mental state requirement. In fact, we believe that the terms of section 6-303 (b) negate such requirement.  We conclude that the violation of section 6-303 of the Motor Vehicle Act is an offense which involves absolute liability and that the mental state of the offender is not an essential element of the offense of driving while license is revoked. Accordingly, we adhere to the opinion as originally adopted, and the petition for rehearing is denied. ABEAHAMSON, P. J. and SEIDENFELD, J., concur.