People v. Costa
997 N.E.2d 706
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Joseph Costa was charged in multiple cases and released on $1,000,000 bond with a condition to appear until final order; he missed a November 15, 2006 status hearing and bond forfeiture warrants issued.
- Costa traveled to Hawaii; Marshals arrested him there on December 12, 2006 and he was in Honolulu custody when the 30-day surrender period expired on December 15, 2006.
- The State indicted Costa on two felony counts under 720 ILCS 5/32-10(a) for willfully failing to surrender within 30 days of bail forfeiture.
- At trial the jury received pattern instructions on the elements of the offense; the court refused the defense’s requested Ratliff-based supplemental instruction and instead told the jury a defendant’s absence caused by imprisonment in a foreign state is not "without fault."
- The jury convicted Costa on both bail-jumping counts; he was sentenced to concurrent three-year terms and assessed various fines and fees.
- On appeal the court considered whether the State proved a willful failure to surrender, whether jury instructions were erroneous, and whether certain assessed fines/fees were authorized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State proved "willful" failure to surrender under 720 ILCS 5/32-10(a) | Arrest in another state does not automatically negate willfulness; jury should decide intent | Arrested within 30-day period and in custody when period expired, so failure could not be willful under Ratliff | Reversed: failure not proved willful because defendant was in custody when 30-day period expired (Ratliff controlling) |
| Whether trial court erred in refusing Ratliff-based jury instruction | The issue of willfulness was for jury; pattern instructions were sufficient | Requested instruction explaining incarceration prevents willfulness was necessary | Court declined to rule on instructional error after reversing convictions on sufficiency grounds |
| Whether trial court erred by telling jury "imprisonment in a foreign state is not 'without fault'" | Note was appropriate per precedent cited by court (People v. Brautigan) | Note contradicted Ratliff and confused the jury | Court did not resolve because convictions reversed on other grounds |
| Whether assessed fines/fees were authorized | Some fees/fines corresponded to convictions/offenses | Many fees (vehicle-code fees, domestic-violence fine, order-of-protection fine) were unsupported by convictions | Vacated the $5 court system fee, $25 court supervision fee, $20 serious traffic fee, $200 domestic violence fine, and $20 order-of-protection fine |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ratliff, 65 Ill.2d 314 (Ill. 1976) (holding incarceration during 30-day surrender period means failure to appear is not "willful")
- People v. Albarran, 40 Ill. App.3d 344 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976) (distinguishing cases where defendant was at large for entire 30-day period and willfulness found)
- People v. Lynn, 89 Ill. App.3d 712 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980) (willful means knowing; incarceration can be an excusable inability to surrender)
- People v. Artis, 232 Ill.2d 156 (Ill. 2009) (noting Ratliff is binding precedent on lower courts)
- People v. Shurn, 418 N.Y.S.2d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979) (holding bail-jumping completes only after 30 days and arrest before expiration defeats the charge)
- Harcum v. State, 710 A.2d 358 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1998) (same rule: recapture or surrender within 30 days precludes willful failure to surrender)