People v. Connors
2017 IL App (1st) 162440
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 5, 2013 Trooper Dustin Forney stopped Chris Connors after observing erratic driving; Connors failed field sobriety tests and refused a breathalyzer. Prosecutors charged Connors with DUI.
- Connors demanded a speedy trial on Sept. 24, 2014. The court continued trial dates at the State’s request to Dec. 12, 2014 and Jan. 29, 2015; Forney failed to appear on those dates and the prosecution offered no explanation.
- Connors later requested multiple status continuances for an ADAS evaluation and plea negotiations from March through Sept. 2015. After negotiations failed, the court set a bench trial for Oct. 21, 2015.
- On Oct. 21, 2015 Connors again answered ready but Forney did not appear. The prosecutor sought a 60‑day extension of the speedy‑trial term under 725 ILCS 5/103‑5(c), stating he had only been communicating with the trooper through a third person and was still trying to confirm a date. The court granted the 60‑day extension and set trial for Dec. 1, 2015.
- Connors moved to dismiss for violation of his statutory speedy‑trial right. The trial court denied the motion, found the State exercised due diligence, and convicted Connors after a bench trial. Connors appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Connors) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State showed due diligence to justify a 60‑day extension under 725 ILCS 5/103‑5(c) | The State argued it had been attempting to contact Trooper Forney (including via a third party) and therefore exercised due diligence. | Connors argued the State failed to make sufficient efforts to secure its sole witness before the speedy‑trial term expired. | The court held the State did not act with due diligence; granting the 60‑day extension was an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the appellate record is sufficient to review the speedy‑trial claim | The State argued the record lacks Connors’s written motion to dismiss and is insufficient. | Connors relied on the trial transcript and the court’s on‑the‑record findings. | The court held the transcript and on‑the‑record findings provided a sufficient record to review the claim. |
| Whether the State could have used a shorter statutory extension (21 days) | The State did not rely on subsection (f). | Connors argued the court should have limited any continuance to 21 days under subsection (f) when delay was for evaluation/plea negotiations. | The court noted the State could have sought a 21‑day extension under §103‑5(f) but granted a 60‑day §103‑5(c) extension without the required due diligence, so reversal was required. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Looney, 46 Ill. App. 3d 404 (appellate court 1977) (sufficiency of record for appellate review).
- People v. Jung, 192 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2000) (appellate‑briefing standards and reliance on statutory interpretation).
- People v. Terry, 312 Ill. App. 3d 984 (appellate court 2000) (trial court discretion in speedy‑trial continuances).
- People v. Battles, 311 Ill. App. 3d 991 (appellate court 2000) (State bears burden to prove due diligence).
- People v. Exson, 384 Ill. App. 3d 794 (appellate court 2008) (due diligence requires timely efforts to locate witnesses).
- People v. Shannon, 34 Ill. App. 3d 185 (appellate court 1975) (vacating conviction where prosecutor’s late efforts to secure police witnesses lacked due diligence).