In re Manual M.
2017 IL App (1st) 162381
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Manuel M., a 16-year-old, was arrested at Throop Park after Officer Kush testified he observed Manuel and two others flashing gang signs at passing cars; a pistol was recovered from Manuel after a pat-down incident to arrest.
- State charged Manuel with two counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) (one count alleging lack of a FOID card; another alleging under-21 possession not covered by Wildlife Code) and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm (UPF).
- Manuel moved to quash the arrest and suppress the firearm; the trial court denied the motion, crediting Officer Kush’s surveillance testimony.
- At trial Officer Kush refused to disclose the exact surveillance location; the court conducted an in camera examination from which Manuel and his counsel were excluded while the prosecutor questioned the officer and argued ex parte.
- The trial court convicted Manuel on all counts (merging some counts) and sentenced him to 18 months’ probation and 30 days’ detention (stay). Manuel appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of proof for AUUW predicated on not having been issued a FOID card | State: Officer Kush’s testimony that Manuel could not produce a FOID card supports AUUW. | Manuel: No evidence State proved he had never been issued a FOID card. | Reversed as to FOID-based AUUW; State conceded insufficiency. |
| Privilege to withhold exact surveillance location | State: Disclosure would endanger officer safety; privilege applies to protect surveillance points. | Manuel: Exact location is critical to test officer’s credibility and probable-cause basis. | Trial court abused discretion by denying disclosure; disclosure often required when officer is sole witness. |
| In camera examination conducted ex parte (defendant and counsel excluded) | State: Knight suggested in camera showing by State; prosecution argued non-disclosure necessity during that hearing. | Manuel: Excluding defendant and counsel and allowing prosecutor to examine and argue ex parte violated confrontation and public-trial rights. | Ex parte in camera examination and prosecutor questioning/argument violated defendant’s confrontation and public trial rights; structural error requiring reversal. |
| Whether retrial is barred by double jeopardy | State: Evidence supports retrial on remaining AUUW and UPF counts. | Manuel: Did not claim double jeopardy as bar. | No double jeopardy bar; remand for new trial on remaining counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Holmes, 241 Ill. 2d 509 (FOID offense requires proof defendant was not issued FOID card)
- People v. Enis, 139 Ill. 2d 264 (trial court discretion to limit cross-examination reviewed for abuse)
- People v. Price, 404 Ill. App. 3d 324 (surveillance-location privilege; in camera hearing procedures)
- People v. Knight, 323 Ill. App. 3d 1117 (disclosure often required where officer is sole witness; balancing test)
- People v. Criss, 294 Ill. App. 3d 276 (surveillance-location privilege analysis)
- People v. Childs, 159 Ill. 2d 217 (right to public trial and participation at critical stages)
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (structural error and automatic reversal doctrine)
- People v. Bean, 137 Ill. 2d 65 (defendant's absence violates rights only if unfairness or denial of substantial right shown)
- People v. Olivera, 164 Ill. 2d 382 (double jeopardy principles regarding retrial)