Gabriel W. v. Gabriel W.
97 N.E.3d 54
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- On Nov. 10, 2016, 15-year-old Gabriel was arrested in possession of a loaded handgun. He was charged in juvenile court with three counts: AUUW based on lack of a FOID card (Count I), AUUW based on being under 21 (Count II), and UPF based on being under 18 (Count III).
- At arraignment Gabriel stipulated to juvenile jurisdiction and confirmed his date of birth to the judge.
- At a suppression hearing before the same judge Gabriel testified under oath that he was 15; the judge denied suppression and immediately proceeded to a bench trial.
- At trial officers testified Gabriel did not present a FOID card and that Gabriel was under 18 (one officer later identified him as 15). Defense made no contemporaneous objection to the officers’ testimony about age.
- The trial court found Gabriel guilty on all counts, merged the lesser counts into Count I, adjudged him a ward, and imposed 18 months’ probation plus a stayed 30‑day juvenile commitment (defendant later sought correction for 251 days’ credit for time served).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of proof that defendant lacked a FOID card (AUUW Count I) | State relied on officer testimony that defendant did not present a FOID card at arrest; argues that supports conviction | Absence of presentation is insufficient; State failed to prove defendant actually lacked a FOID card | Vacated Count I — failure to prove lack of FOID; conviction cannot rest on mere non‑presentation (accepting State concession and precedent) |
| Sufficiency of proof of defendant's age for AUUW (Count II) | Age proven by officer testimony at trial and by prior sworn testimony and stipulation to juvenile jurisdiction | Argues bench trial lacked sufficient proof of age because proof occurred at earlier suppression hearing | Affirmed Count II — judge may consider sworn testimony from earlier proceedings and the arraignment stipulation; officer testimony also supported age |
| Sufficiency of proof of defendant's age for UPF (Count III) | Same as for Count II — age shown by testimony and stipulation | Same as for Count II | Affirmed Count III on the merits but vacated under one‑act, one‑crime rule (see below) |
| Application of one‑act, one‑crime rule when multiple counts arise from same possession | State: if age‑based counts stand, lesser overlapping offense must be vacated | Defendant agrees merger/vacatur required if both age counts sustained | Vacated Count III (UPF) as the lesser offense; AUUW based on age (Count II) remains the operative adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Manuel M., 2017 IL App (1st) 162381 (finding officer testimony that defendant did not present a FOID card, without proof that no FOID was issued, insufficient for AUUW predicated on lack of FOID)
- In re Brown, 71 Ill. 2d 151 (1978) (trial judge in bench trial may consider sworn testimony about age from an earlier stage of the same proceedings)
- In re Sammantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 (juvenile one‑act, one‑crime rule applies; merger required where counts arise from same act)
- In re S.M., 2015 IL App (3d) 140687 (discussing sufficiency of proof of age; distinguishes cases where prior sworn testimony or officer testimony is present)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (constitutional requirement that guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)