Doe v. Parrillo
2021 IL 126577
| Ill. | 2021Background:
- Jane Doe sued Beau Parrillo alleging multiple incidents of domestic battery and sexual assault between October 2015 and March 2016; she sought compensatory and punitive damages.
- After service difficulties and discovery disputes, the case proceeded to jury trial on January 14–15, 2019; Parrillo’s counsel did not meaningfully participate in trial, and no court reporter transcript exists.
- The jury awarded Doe $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $8,000,000 in punitive damages; the trial court denied Parrillo’s posttrial motion.
- The appellate court affirmed all rulings except it reduced punitive damages from $8,000,000 to $1,000,000 as constitutionally excessive under Gore/Campbell principles.
- The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the full $8,000,000 punitive award, affirming the trial court in all other respects, holding the award was not unconstitutionally excessive given reprehensibility and single-digit ratio.
Issues:
| Issue | Doe's Argument | Parrillo's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court properly reduced $8M punitive award | Reduction conflicted with Illinois precedent and lacked principled basis; punitive award fit Gore/Campbell guideposts | Award was excessive and violated due process (high ratio; allegedly unfair trial) | Supreme Court reversed appellate reduction and reinstated $8M; punitive award comported with Gore/Campbell given violent, repeated misconduct and single‑digit ratio |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying continuance / proceeding without defendant’s counsel | Trial proceeding without defense was within judge’s discretion given counsels’ procedural failures; defendant had notice | Emergency continuance warranted (family illness; counsel errors); proceeding deprived Parrillo of due process | Trial court did not abuse discretion; defense counsel had opportunities and effectively abandoned participation; proceeding without defense was permissible given facts |
| Effect of absent trial transcript on appellate review and waiver of objections | Appellate court should not substitute its judgment for jury; lack of transcript does not nullify constitutional review of punitive award | Absence of transcript limits review and many claimed errors were forfeited; defendant bears burden to preserve record | Court held deficiencies in record weigh against appellant; lack of transcript precludes reversal of most trial errors and supports presumption of correct rulings |
| Whether trial judge’s posttrial comments showed bias requiring reversal | Comments reflected frustration, not disqualifying bias; they occurred posttrial and did not affect rulings | Comments displayed hostility/prejudice that tainted trial rulings | No disqualifying bias; remarks did not demonstrate inability to judge fairly and occurred after trial decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) (recognizes potential for punitive damages to violate due process and observes compensatory/punitive comparison is significant)
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (establishes three punitive‑damages guideposts: reprehensibility, ratio, and comparable sanctions)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (refines Gore: reprehensibility factors and guidance that few awards exceeding single‑digit multipliers will satisfy due process)
- International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 v. Lowe Excavating Co., 225 Ill. 2d 456 (2006) (Ill. S. Ct. application of Gore/Campbell to modify punitive awards based on reprehensibility and ratio)
- Blount v. Stroud, 395 Ill. App. 3d 8 (2009) (appellate discussion of ratios and due‑process concerns for punitive awards)
- Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001) (mandates de novo appellate review of punitive‑damages constitutional claims)