People v. Gibson
91 N.E.3d 398
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Edward Gibson was indicted for first-degree murder and concealment of a homicidal death; the public defender was originally appointed.
- Over several years Gibson repeatedly alternated between rejecting counsel, requesting different public defenders or a pro bono attorney, and electing to represent himself; the court repeatedly admonished him and warned a final decision would be enforced.
- On the eve of jury selection (June 4, 2012) Gibson asked to have the public defender reappointed; the trial court found this a delay tactic and denied the request. Gibson proceeded pro se for voir dire.
- On the first day of trial Gibson refused to exit the holding cell, insisting he needed a "proper lawyer." The court tried repeatedly to secure his participation but ultimately conducted the trial in absentia; Gibson was unable to view exhibits or effectively cross-examine.
- Gibson was convicted on both counts; posttrial he sought reappointment of the public defender and moved for a new trial arguing the court erred by refusing to appoint counsel and by trying him in absentia without counsel. The court denied relief and sentenced him to 35 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reappoint the public defender just before voir dire | Court: defendant waived counsel earlier; last-minute request was a delay tactic and reappointment could be denied | Gibson: last-minute reappointment was required and denial was an abuse of discretion | Court: No abuse of discretion; record shows repeated changes and warnings supporting delay-tactic finding |
| Whether, when tried in absentia while in custody, the court was required to appoint counsel under 725 ILCS 5/115-4.1(a) | State: statute’s appointment requirement does not apply to in-custody defendants who are on the premises but refuse to attend (Eppinger) | Gibson: statute should require appointment; Eppinger wrongly decided — in-custody defendants need same protection as bail jumpers | Court: Eppinger controls; statute does not require appointed counsel for an in-custody defendant who refuses to leave holding cell |
| Whether combining waiver-of-counsel and trial-in-absentia creates a distinct rule requiring different treatment | State: no reason to create different rule; Eppinger and prior admonitions apply | Gibson: sui generis facts justify deviation from precedent | Court: Not persuaded; no precedent or reason to depart from Eppinger and standard waiver principles |
| Whether trial court erred procedurally in conducting trial without defendant present and without appointed counsel | State: court provided warnings, opportunities to participate, and procedures protecting rights; defendant’s refusals led to forfeiture of presence | Gibson: trial without presence and counsel violated rights | Court: No error — warnings and procedures were proper; defendant voluntarily absented himself and had earlier waived counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pratt, 391 Ill. App. 3d 45 (Ill. App. Ct.) (trial court may deny late revocation of pro se waiver when request is delay tactic)
- People v. Burton, 184 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 1998) (Sixth Amendment guarantees right to counsel and right to self-representation)
- People v. Jones, 2015 IL App (2d) 120717 (Ill. App. Ct.) (trial court need not allow revocation of waiver if it finds delay tactic)
- People v. Eppinger, 2013 IL 114121 (Ill.) (statutory requirement to appoint counsel when defendant "fails to appear" does not apply to in-custody defendants who refuse to leave holding cell)