In re Manual M.
2017 IL App (1st) 162381
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- A 16-year-old (Manuel M.) was arrested near Throop Park after Officer Kush observed him and two others allegedly flashing gang signs at passing cars; a pistol was recovered in a search incident to arrest.
- The State charged Manuel with two counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm (UPF).
- Manuel moved to quash the arrest and suppress the firearm; the motion was denied and the case proceeded to trial on Officer Kush’s testimony.
- During trial defense counsel sought the exact location from which Officer Kush conducted surveillance; the prosecutor objected on officer-safety grounds and the court conducted an in camera examination from which Manuel and his attorney were excluded while the prosecutor questioned and argued.
- The court refused to require disclosure of the exact surveillance point but allowed questioning about distance and lighting; Manuel was convicted, adjudicated delinquent, and sentenced to probation and a stayed 30-day juvenile detention commitment.
- On appeal the court reversed as to the AUUW count alleging lack of issuance of a FOID card (State conceded insufficient proof) and ordered a new trial, holding the trial court abused its discretion by barring exact-location inquiry and violated Manuel’s confrontation and public-trial rights by permitting ex parte in camera examination and argument by the prosecutor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of proof for AUUW based on not being issued a FOID card | Officer Kush’s testimony that Manuel did not present a FOID card after arrest suffices | State failed to prove Manuel had not been issued a FOID card | Reversed as to that AUUW count — State conceded insufficiency |
| Whether trial court properly refused to compel disclosure of exact surveillance location (surveillance-location privilege) | Privilege applies to protect officer safety; distance/lighting questions suffice | Exact location is relevant and essential to test officer’s credibility and probable cause | Court abused discretion by sustaining the objection; disclosure typically required when case rests on uncorroborated officer testimony |
| Whether in camera examination procedure violated confrontation/right to effective cross-examination | In camera hearing can be used to determine privilege; prior cases permit ex parte State showing | Ex parte questioning and argument by prosecutor outside presence of defendant and counsel denies confrontation and public-trial rights | Ex parte in camera questioning and argument by State violated defendant’s confrontation and public-trial rights; in camera examination should be limited and conducted outside presence of both parties |
| Whether retrial on remaining AUUW and UPF counts barred by double jeopardy | Not barred — evidence supports retrial | Defendant argued due process/double jeopardy concerns | Retrial permitted; no double jeopardy bar to reprosecution on remaining counts |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Holmes, 241 Ill. 2d 509 (State must prove defendant had not been issued a FOID card for AUUW based on lack of FOID issuance)
- People v. Enis, 139 Ill. 2d 264 (trial court has discretion to limit cross-examination; reviewed for abuse)
- People v. Price, 404 Ill. App. 3d 324 (procedures for in camera surveillance-location inquiry; preference that in camera be outside presence of both parties)
- People v. Knight, 323 Ill. App. 3d 1117 (surveillance-location privilege balancing test; disclosure usually required when officer testimony is sole, uncorroborated evidence)
- People v. Criss, 294 Ill. App. 3d 276 (surveillance-location privilege and balancing test)
- People v. Childs, 152 Ill. 2d 217 (defendant’s right to appear and participate at all stages of proceedings affecting substantial rights)
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (denial of public trial is structural error requiring reversal)
- People v. Bean, 137 Ill. 2d 65 (defendant’s absence violates rights only if it renders proceeding unfair or denies substantial right)
- People v. Olivera, 164 Ill. 2d 382 (retrial permitted where evidence supports reprosecution on remaining charges)