People v. Comage
241 Ill. 2d 139
Ill.2011Background
- Defendant was charged with obstructing justice for knowingly concealing physical evidence by throwing a crack pipe and push-rod over a wooden privacy fence while pursued by police.
- The State also charged unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia and resisting a peace officer; defendant was initially convicted of obstructing justice and resisting arrest, but acquitted of paraphernalia possession.
- At the second trial, Officers Chad Larner and Kathleen Romer testified they observed defendant throw the items over a six-foot fence; the area was well-lit and the items landed about 10 feet from where defendant was apprehended.
- Larner recovered the items approximately 20 seconds after looking for them; all evidence was retrieved with no difficulty.
- The appellate court upheld the obstruction conviction, and this court granted review to determine whether the items were concealed under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of conceal under 31-4(a) | Comage: concealment not shown; items were in view and quickly recovered. | People: concealment includes placing evidence out of sight, even briefly. | Concealment requires removal from observation; not satisfied here. |
| Did throwing evidence over the fence constitute concealment | Comage: throwing into view of gap does not conceal. | People: out-of-sight act satisfies concealment. | Not concealment; brief out-of-sight does not satisfy statute. |
| Materiality/impact on investigation | Comage: no material impediment since recovery was prompt. | People: concealment supports obstruction regardless of ultimate interference. | Material impediment not required; but concealment not proven here. |
| Effect of M.F. and Brake decisions | Comage: those cases support no concealment. | People: distinguishable but should support concealment under statute. | Statutory meaning not limited by those precedents; concealment not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.F., 315 Ill.App.3d 641 (2000) (holding that dropping/abandoning contraband in view may not equal concealment)
- People v. Brake, 336 Ill.App.3d 464 (2003) (swallowing evidence can constitute concealment under certain facts)
- Manning, 334 Ill.App.3d 882 (2002) (concealment judged by defendant's state of mind; ordinary meaning of conceal)
- Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398 (1998) (statutory language cannot be restricted to the evil Congress sought to remedy)
- People v. Mulcahey, 72 Ill.2d 282 (1978) (concealment concept tied to knowledge withheld or hidden)