People v. Laws
66 N.E.3d 848
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant Todd L. Laws, previously convicted in 2010 of unlawful possession of methamphetamine, was convicted after a stipulated bench trial of unlawful possession of methamphetamine precursors under 720 ILCS 646/120(a) for purchasing 12-hour Sudafed on November 18, 2013.
- Evidence in the stipulation: NPLEx log showing the purchase, store surveillance (identifying defendant as purchaser), no prescription flagged in NPLEx, and a certified copy of the 2010 methamphetamine conviction.
- Section 120(a) prohibits anyone previously convicted under the Act from "knowingly" purchasing, receiving, owning, or possessing a product containing a methamphetamine precursor unless prescribed.
- Defendant moved to dismiss on due-process/overbreadth grounds (relying on Madrigal), and later argued on appeal that the statute requires a higher mens rea—"criminal knowledge"—including knowledge that the substance contains a precursor.
- The trial court denied the dismissal, found defendant guilty under a stipulation, and sentenced him pursuant to a negotiated agreement; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §120(a) requires knowledge only of possession or also knowledge that the substance contains a methamphetamine precursor | State: statute's text requires only that the defendant "knowingly" possess the item; mens rea applies to the possessory act, not the illicit character | Laws: statute should require "criminal knowledge"—both knowledge of possession and knowledge the item contains a precursor—otherwise risk punishing innocent conduct | Court: mens rea applies to possession only; State need only prove defendant knowingly possessed the product containing a precursor |
| Whether the statute must be read to include criminal (devious) intent to avoid overbreadth/unconstitutionality | State: statute is limited to persons with prior methamphetamine convictions and includes a prescription exception—rationally related to legislative purpose | Laws: without reading criminal knowledge in, statute risks creating absolute liability and punishing innocent conduct; constitutional issue preserved by prior cases | Court: defendant waived a constitutional challenge on appeal; even on merits, courts cannot read a different/additional mens rea into a statute that expressly contains a mental state |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Madrigal, 241 Ill.2d 463 (statute overbroad where only knowledge mens rea could punish wholly innocent conduct)
- People v. Carpenter, 228 Ill.2d 250 (court may not read a different/additional mens rea into a statute that expressly provides one)
- People v. Wright, 194 Ill.2d 1 (distinguishing Tolliver; where statute supplies a mens rea, courts should not imply criminal intent)
- People v. Tolliver, 147 Ill.2d 397 (reading criminal knowledge into statute that contained no mens rea to preserve constitutionality)
- People v. DePalma, 256 Ill. App.3d 206 (reading criminal knowledge into a statute to avoid overbreadth)
- People v. Ivy, 133 Ill. App.3d 647 (mens rea need only apply to possessory element, not character of the object)
- People v. Stanley, 397 Ill. App.3d 598 (upholding Ivy; mens rea applies to possession, not alteration/character of weapon)
- People v. Gean, 143 Ill.2d 281 (definition of "knowledge" as conscious awareness of facts)
- People v. Givens, 237 Ill.2d 311 (State must prove knowledge of possession and control for drug possession)
- People v. Hester, 271 Ill. App.3d 954 (for felon-in-possession, State must prove possession and prior conviction; knowledge of prohibition need not be shown)