2011 IL App (2d) 100205
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Lee was charged with aggravated criminal sexual assault and unlawful restraint in case 05–CF–4654, and charged separately with residential arson in case 05–CF–4612.
- Lee was convicted in the first case and sentenced to concurrent terms; the residential arson indictment was dismissed after those convictions but later reindicted after reversal on appeal.
- This court reversed the first case for a new trial due to trial error, and the State subsequently reindicted Lee for residential arson in a separate case 09–CF–928.
- Lee moved to dismiss the residential arson indictment as vindictive; the trial court dismissed it on statute-of-limitations grounds and raised concerns about vindictiveness.
- The State appealed; the issue centered on whether there was a presumption of vindictiveness or actual vindictiveness for pretrial reindictment of a separate crime.
- The appellate court held there was no presumption or actual vindictiveness, reversed the dismissal order, and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does reindicting a separate crime after a successful appeal trigger a presumption of vindictiveness? | State contends no presumption applies here; crimes are separate and pretrial. | Lee asserts presumption applies when vindictiveness is likely after an appeal. | No presumption of vindictiveness applied. |
| Was there actual vindictiveness in the reindictment for residential arson? | State acted with proper prosecutorial discretion; no animus shown. | Vindictiveness evidenced by reindictment after favorable appeal. | No actual vindictiveness shown. |
| Do pretrial, separate-offense reindictments fall outside the Johnson/Stafford framework for vindictiveness? | Johnson/Stafford apply when relevant to state’s motives in reindictment. | Those authorities show vindictiveness in related or post-conviction contexts. | Pretrial, separate offenses do not trigger presumption. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Johnson, 102 Ill. App. 3d 1056 (1981) (burden to prove objective facts for reindictment in vindictive prosecutions)
- People v. Stafford, 325 Ill. App. 3d 1069 (2001) (vindictiveness when reindictment follows dismissal after appeal)
- People v. Brexton, 405 Ill. App. 3d 989 (2010) (vindictiveness when new, more serious charge after plea withdrawal)
- United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982) (presumption of vindictiveness generally not applied in pretrial settings)
- Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974) (due process limits on vindictiveness after appeal)
- Williams v. Bartow, 481 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2007) (prosecution of an entirely different crime may require actual vindictiveness proof)
- Martinez v. United States, 785 F.2d 663 (9th Cir. 1986) (unrelated new charges after original charges may negate presumption)