In re B.C.P.
2013 IL 113908
Ill.2013Background
- The State filed a petition alleging juvenile B.C.P. committed aggravated criminal sexual abuse; B.C.P. moved to suppress his confession as not Mirandized.
- The trial court granted the motion to suppress; the State filed a certificate of impairment and sought interlocutory appeal.
- The Third District Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because no supreme court rule expressly permits interlocutory appeals by the State from suppression orders in juvenile delinquency proceedings.
- The State asked the Illinois Supreme Court to allow modification of the court rules so Rule 604(a)(1) (criminal-state interlocutory appeals for suppression orders) would apply in juvenile delinquency matters.
- The Supreme Court considered prior decisions (Martin, DeJesus) where the Court permitted certain State interlocutory appeals in juvenile contexts and weighed policy changes in the Juvenile Court Act (1998 reforms) that made juvenile proceedings more akin to criminal cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State may take an interlocutory appeal from an order suppressing evidence in a juvenile delinquency proceeding | State: Rule 604(a)(1) protections should apply in juvenile cases; the Court may modify rules under its rulemaking power to permit the appeal | Respondent (B.C.P.): No existing supreme court rule authorizes such an interlocutory appeal; policy concerns and procedural rulemaking counsel against judicial rulemaking now | Court: Modify Rule 660(a) to incorporate Rule 604(a)(1); State may appeal suppression orders in juvenile delinquency cases and such appeals must be expedited under Rule 660A |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Martin, 67 Ill. 2d 462 (recognizing State appealability where a juvenile ruling effectively terminated future criminal prosecution)
- People v. DeJesus, 127 Ill. 2d 486 (applied Rule 604(a)(1) principles to juvenile proceedings where order terminated criminal prosecution)
- People v. Young, 82 Ill. 2d 234 (explaining policy reasons for permitting State interlocutory appeals to prevent unreviewed erroneous exclusionary rulings)
- Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport Authority v. Department of Revenue, 126 Ill. 2d 326 (court precedent for modifying rules in light of modern practice)