People v. Chenoweth
2013 IL App (4th) 120334
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Chenoweth was found guilty in January 2012 of unlawful financial exploitation of an elderly person after a bench trial.
- The State charged her by indictment (Dec. 21, 2009) and information (June 9, 2010) for conduct in 2004–2005, outside the 3-year SOL for a felony.
- The State sought to extend the limitations period under Crim. Code §3-6(a)(2) based on discovery of the offense by an aggrieved person, Ella Stathakis, and related reporting.
- Ella became aware of the offense on Dec. 5, 2008, when she told Detective Liesen she had not authorized certain checks written by Chenoweth.
- The trial court and appellate courts treated the extended period as running from discovery by the aggrieved person, not from the officer’s knowledge.
- The appellate court vacated the conviction and sentence on the basis that the extended statute expired before charges were filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of extended SOL under 3-6(a)(2) | State contends 3-6(a)(2) extended the period within 1 year of discovery by the aggrieved or officer knowledge. | Chenoweth argues discovery required Ella’s knowledge, not merely the officer’s awareness; indictment invalid if discovery occurred later. | Indictment invalid; extended period not properly triggered. |
| Who bears the discovery trigger for 3-6(a)(2) | State asserts discovery by the proper prosecuting officer within 1 year of awareness suffices. | Chenoweth asserts discovery must be by Ella or her legal representative. | Disovery by Ella on Dec. 5, 2008 triggers extension; State failed to charge within extended period. |
| Effect of discovery date on charging timeline | State maintains charges filed within 1 year of discovery were timely. | Chenoweth argues no timely filing within extended window. | Charges filed after the extended window; conviction vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McGreal, 4 Ill. App. 3d 312 (1971) (discovery requires knowledge of violation by a reporting party)
- People v. Campa, 217 Ill. 2d 243 (2005) (statutory interpretation and discovery concepts in 3-6)
- People v. Whitney, 188 Ill. 2d 91 (1999) (statutory interpretation and construction principles)
- People v. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d 427 (2005) (plain meaning governs statutory language)
- People v. Lutz, 73 Ill. 2d 204 (1978) (consistent meaning of terms across statute parts)
- People v. Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d 89 (2002) (interpretation of statute extensions)