Burrell v. The Village of Sauk
96 N.E.3d 375
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Barry Burrell was arrested, indicted, tried, and acquitted (jury found him not guilty) for the 2006 death of his one‑month‑old niece, Kailie; he then sued Sauk Village and Detectives Holevis and Grossman for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Medical examiner Dr. Michelle Jordan ruled the death a homicide from blunt‑force trauma, describing multiple severe injuries and stating, based on her examination, that the injuries were not consistent with accidental bassinet falling or a child dropping the infant.
- Detectives relied on the autopsy, statements placing Burrell as the only adult present around the time of death, and Burrell’s inconsistent/confessed statements to investigators when concluding he was the likely perpetrator; they did not interview Kendra (a child who later said she dropped the baby).
- The Cook County State’s Attorney’s felony review approved charging Burrell; a grand jury returned a true bill; the trial court denied Burrell’s motion to quash for lack of probable cause.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for defendants on malicious prosecution (finding probable cause) and on statute‑of‑limitations grounds for the emotional‑distress claim; Burrell appealed only the malicious prosecution probable‑cause ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was probable cause to prosecute Burrell for first‑degree murder | Burrell argues prosecutors and detectives lacked probable cause because they ignored or failed to investigate Kendra’s statements that she dropped the baby, and medical findings did not preclude that explanation | Defendants argue the totality of circumstances (autopsy ruling of homicide from blunt force, Burrell the only adult present, his inconsistent/false statements, felony review and grand jury) supported an objectively reasonable belief of guilt | Court held probable cause existed and affirmed summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether malice was shown for malicious prosecution | Burrell contends defendants acted maliciously in commencing prosecution despite exculpatory indications | Defendants contend their actions were objectively reasonable and supported by medical opinion and prosecutorial review | Court found plaintiff forfeited detailed malice argument and, because probable cause exists, malice is immaterial; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Ioerger v. Halverson Constr. Co., 232 Ill. 2d 196 (2008) (summary judgment standard)
- Sang Ken Kim v. City of Chicago, 368 Ill. App. 3d 648 (2006) (probable cause may exist independent of a confession where medical examiner and other facts support reasonable belief of guilt)
- Turner v. City of Chicago, 91 Ill. App. 3d 931 (1980) (existence of probable cause is an absolute bar to malicious prosecution)
- Swick v. Liautaud, 169 Ill. 2d 504 (1996) (missing any element of malicious prosecution defeats the claim)
- Knox Cty. v. Midland Coal Co., 265 Ill. App. 3d 782 (1994) (probable cause defined by what a person of ordinary caution would suspect under totality of circumstances)