People v. Fields
2012 IL 112438
| Ill. | 2012Background
- Fields was convicted of two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, three counts of criminal sexual assault, and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse; sentenced to 36 years.
- Appellate Court reversed, holding trial counsel had a per se conflict of interest due to prior guardian ad litem work for the alleged victim in a different case.
- State sought to admit other-crimes evidence under section 115-7.3 to show propensity, including a Rock Island County conviction of the victim in a separate case.
- Counsel for Fields, who had previously represented the victim, moved to withdraw and new counsel was appointed.
- At trial, the prior conviction and related testimony from the victim were admitted to prove propensity; Fields challenged the representation as per se conflict.
- Illinois Supreme Court granted State’s petition for leave to appeal and reversed, holding no per se conflict existed under current precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does prior representation of a prosecution witness create a per se conflict? | People argued the witness qualifies as an entity assisting the prosecution. | Fields argued prior representation created a per se conflict. | No per se conflict; prior representation not contemporaneous and witness not an entity. |
| Does the witness qualify as an 'entity assisting the prosecution' for per se conflict? | Majority found C.S. to be an entity assisting the prosecution. | Fields argued and the Court agrees there is no such entity; cannot be both person and entity. | Not an entity under the per se rule; no per se conflict. |
| Would the witness' status as a potential beneficiary of a conviction create a per se conflict? | Appellate court relied on Hernandez/Janés logic that beneficiary status could create conflict. | No fourth category; prior/contemporaneous rule governs per se conflicts. | Not a separate basis for per se conflict; still no per se conflict overall. |
| If no per se conflict exists, can the defendant show an actual conflict of interest? | Not explicitly required here since no per se conflict. | Potential for actual conflict could exist; defendant can pursue actual conflict theory. | The court declines to find per se conflict; remands for consideration of other issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Taylor, 237 Ill. 2d 356 (2010) (defines three per se conflict categories and outlines automatic reversal)
- Hernandez v. State, 231 Ill. 2d 134 (2008) (per se conflict when defense counsel has ties to a person or entity benefiting from a verdict)
- People v. Enoch, 146 Ill. 2d 44 (1991) (prior representation of a witness does not automatically create per se conflict)
- People v. Flores, 128 Ill. 2d 66 (1989) (contemporaneous representation of a witness as per se conflict scenario)
- People v. Free, 112 Ill. 2d 154 (1986) (before trial, non-contemporaneous witness representation not per se conflict)
- People v. Robinson, 79 Ill. 2d 147 (1979) (conflict when attorney has active relationship with a witness)
- People v. Spreitzer, 123 Ill. 2d 1 (1988) (foundation for per se conflicts involving ties to a person/entity)
- People v. Washington, 101 Ill. 2d 104 (1984) (entity as per se conflict example involving municipality)
- People v. Lawson, 163 Ill. 2d 187 (1994) (illustrates distinction between person vs. entity in per se analysis)