2014 IL App (5th) 130150
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- On April 5, 2010 police responded to a 9-1-1 call reporting a domestic disturbance at 619 N. Springer in Carbondale; caller said Chelsea Burg and her newborn were inside and not answering.
- Officer Zachary Street arrived, knocked, and spoke through the door with defendant James Jamison, who refused to open the door and confirmed Burg and the baby were inside.
- Because Street could not see or hear Burg or the infant and feared for their safety, additional officers and a hostage negotiator were called; the negotiator spoke with Jamison for over an hour without success.
- Officers obtained a search warrant and forced entry; Burg and the infant were located unharmed; Jamison was arrested and charged with obstructing a peace officer (720 ILCS 5/31‑1(a)).
- At a June 2012 hearing the trial court accepted Jamison’s waiver of appointed counsel and allowed him to proceed pro se, but the proceedings required by Supreme Court Rule 401(b) were not recorded verbatim.
- A jury convicted Jamison; the trial court sentenced him to probation. On appeal the Fifth District reversed and remanded because Rule 401(b) was not strictly followed; the court also held the trial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction so retrial is not barred by double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s failure to record verbatim the Rule 401 waiver requires reversal | People: any waiver was knowingly made and trial fairness preserved | Jamison: Rule 401(b) requires verbatim record of waiver; absence renders waiver ineffective | Court: Strict compliance with Rule 401(b) is required; failure to record verbatim invalidated the waiver — conviction reversed and remanded |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain obstruction conviction (must obstruction involve a physical act?) | People: Jamison’s refusal to allow contact impeded officer’s authorized investigation and supported conviction | Jamison: Obstruction requires an active physical act; his conduct was passive and insufficient | Court: Under People v. Baskerville obstruction need not be a physical act; facts were sufficient to convict, so retrial is not barred |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Haynes, 174 Ill.2d 204 (Ill. 1996) (substantive Rule 401(a) waiver may be found under substantial compliance)
- People v. Herring, 327 Ill. App. 3d 259 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (requires strict compliance with Rule 401(b) verbatim-record requirement)
- People v. Montgomery, 298 Ill. App. 3d 1096 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (explaining Rule 401(b) verbatim-transcript mandate)
- People v. Baskerville, 2012 IL 111056 (Ill. 2012) (obstructing a peace officer need not involve a physical act; focus is on whether conduct hindered officer)
- City of Champaign v. Torres, 346 Ill. App. 3d 214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (officer’s investigation of reported disturbance is an authorized duty)
- People v. Liner, 356 Ill. App. 3d 284 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (sufficient evidence supports retrial; double jeopardy not implicated)