People v. Kilcauski
2016 IL App (5th) 140526
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Charles Kilcauski was arrested in Clinton County on June 23, 2013, and charged the next day with felony obstructing justice and misdemeanor possession of a hypodermic syringe.
- Between June 24 and July 3, 2013, the Clinton County sheriff’s office transferred Kilcauski to St. Louis County custody without formal extradition or a court order; he remained detained in Missouri through March 2014.
- On August 7, 2013 the circuit court dismissed the felony information without prejudice because the State failed to provide a preliminary hearing within 30 days; the misdemeanor was nolle prossed the next day.
- Kilcauski filed a pro se speedy-trial request in Clinton County on August 14, 2013, notifying the court that he was incarcerated in St. Louis County.
- The State waited until July 17, 2014 to present identical charges to a grand jury and obtain an indictment; Kilcauski was arrested on that indictment in September 2014.
- The trial court dismissed the indictment with prejudice on constitutional and statutory speedy-trial grounds; the State appealed and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the delay between the original dismissal and later indictment violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial | Only due-process analysis (preindictment delay) applies to delay after dismissal; court must assess under Fifth Amendment, not Barker factors | Sixth Amendment applies because defendant was arrested and held to answer when first detained and never formally released; Barker factors therefore govern | Sixth Amendment Barker analysis applies here; delay prejudicial and State had no justification; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the State’s failure to secure preliminary hearing/timely indictment violated statutory speedy-trial rights (725 ILCS 5/103-5) | Delay was caused by defendant’s transfer and failure to follow Interstate Agreement on Detainers; statute not violated | Defendant remained in custody under Clinton County (sheriff transferred custody without release), so statutory 120-day clock ran and was not tolled by transfer | Court found defendant remained in custody for statute’s purposes; statutory speedy-trial violation proven |
| Whether the State’s conduct (sheriff’s transfer) is attributable to the State for speedy-trial analysis | Transfer was outside State’s control and excused delay | Sheriff is part of the State; negligent or unauthorized sheriff acts are attributable to the State | Sheriff’s actions imputed to the State; State offered no valid excuse for delay |
| Whether defendant was prejudiced by the delay warranting dismissal | No substantial prejudice shown; statute of limitations preserved prosecution | Defendant suffered long pretrial incarceration and lost witness/opportunity for concurrent disposition | Prejudice established (lengthy incarceration and lost witness); supports dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor test for constitutional speedy-trial claims)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (constitutional speedy-trial protections attach on arrest or formal charge)
- People v. Campa, 217 Ill. 2d 243 (2005) (distinguishing constitutional and statutory speedy-trial rights)
- People v. Crane, 195 Ill. 2d 42 (2001) (de novo review when facts undisputed in speedy-trial claim)
- People v. Van Schoyck, 232 Ill. 2d 330 (2009) (statutory speedy-trial provisions are liberally construed for defendants)
- People v. Lawson, 67 Ill. 2d 449 (1977) (trial court’s inherent authority to dismiss for due-process violations)
- People v. Staten, 159 Ill. 2d 419 (1994) (statutory speedy-trial claim does not require proof of prejudice)
- People v. Totzke, 974 N.E.2d 408 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012) (de novo review for due-process determinations)