People v. Lewis
2016 IL App (4th) 140852
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Richard D. Lewis, previously convicted under the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act, purchased one box of Smart Sense 12‑hour decongestant (contains pseudoephedrine) without a prescription at a Kmart on December 31, 2013; purchase was admitted and shown on surveillance.
- He was convicted after a stipulated bench trial of unlawful possession of methamphetamine precursors under 720 ILCS 646/120(a) (Class 4 felony).
- Sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement to one year in prison and one year mandatory supervised release; the trial court also assessed a $100 methamphetamine law enforcement fine.
- On appeal Lewis argued (1) the State did not prove he knew the product contained a methamphetamine precursor, (2) section 120 is unconstitutionally overbroad and violates due process, (3) disparity between section 120 (felony) and the Precursor Act section 40 (misdemeanor) violates due process/equal protection/proportionate penalties clause, and (4) the $100 enforcement fine was improper.
- The appellate court affirmed the conviction but vacated the $100 methamphetamine law enforcement fine (State conceded it was inapplicable).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Lewis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency under 720 ILCS 646/120(a) — knowledge element | State: conviction valid because defendant knowingly purchased a product that contained pseudoephedrine; proof satisfied by admission and video. | Lewis: State failed to show he knew the product contained a methamphetamine precursor. | Held: State met its burden; §120(a) requires knowledge of possessing a substance containing a precursor, not knowledge of its illegality. |
| $100 methamphetamine law enforcement fine | Court/State: fine applies only when convicted of methamphetamine possession/delivery with intent to manufacture or possession of manufacturing materials with intent; not present here. | Lewis: fine should be vacated because he was not convicted of possessing/delivering methamphetamine nor found to intend manufacture. | Held: Vacated the $100 fine. |
| Overbreadth / Due process — §120(a) punishes wholly innocent conduct? | State: §120(a) rationally furthers the legislative goal of preventing meth manufacture by restricting precursors for a limited, high‑risk class. | Lewis: §120(a) lacks a criminal‑intent requirement and can punish wholly innocent acts (e.g., borrowing a pill, buying for a child), violating due process. | Held: §120(a) is not overbroad; it rationally targets persons with prior convictions and requires only prescription to lawfully possess. |
| Disparate penalties / proportionate penalties / equal protection between Community Protection Act and Precursor Act | State: Acts have different purposes and elements; different punishments are permissible under rational‑basis review. | Lewis: The Community Protection Act makes lesser acts felonies while Precursor Act treats larger acquisitions as misdemeanors, violating due process/equal protection/proportionate penalties clause. | Held: No violation — the statutes proscribe different conduct and the legislature may set different penalties; §120 does not offend the proportionate penalties clause or equal protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re E.H., 224 Ill. 2d 172 (appellate and constitutional issues should be decided only after nonconstitutional grounds)
- People v. Molnar, 222 Ill. 2d 495 (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- People v. Williams, 235 Ill. 2d 178 (legislature may forbid conduct it deems noninnocent; examples of less‑egregious conduct do not demonstrate overbreadth)
- People v. Willner, 392 Ill. App. 3d 121 (statute not unreasonable merely because some purchasers without intent to manufacture might violate it)
- People v. Klepper, 234 Ill. 2d 337 (proportionate penalties analysis—compare elements of offenses)
- People v. Wade, 131 Ill. 2d 370 (availability of different punishments for separate offenses based on same acts does not violate equal protection or due process)