People v. McCoy
2014 IL App (2d) 130632
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Thomas McCoy was charged with multiple offenses and a court-ordered fitness evaluation (May 2013) concluded he was unfit but likely restorable within a year.
- At the June 14, 2013 hearing, McCoy personally stated “I demand a jury,” repeatedly objected to a stipulated finding of unfitness, and the trial court admonished him to stop speaking and did not address his jury demand.
- The parties stipulated and the court entered a written order finding McCoy unfit to stand trial; McCoy filed a pro se notice of appeal from that order.
- McCoy was later found restored to fitness (Nov. 25, 2013) and entered guilty pleas in January 2014; he sought appellate review of the earlier unfitness finding and the court’s handling of his jury demand.
- The appellate court considered mootness exceptions (capable-of-repetition and public-interest) and reached the merits, concluding the trial court erred by disregarding McCoy’s personal demand for a jury under section 104-12.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant may personally demand a jury determination of fitness under 725 ILCS 5/104-12 | The State suggested Haynes might be limited and urged deference to counsel’s role; at oral argument it challenged Haynes (forfeited) | McCoy argued Haynes allows the defendant personally to demand a jury and the court must honor that demand | Court held the defendant has a statutory right to personally demand a jury under §104-12; the trial court erred by ignoring his demand |
| Whether People v. Holt undermines Haynes or permits courts to disregard a defendant’s jury demand | State argued Holt called Haynes into question and counsel may override client preferences | McCoy relied on Haynes distinction: Holt addresses counsel’s advocacy choices, not the right to demand a jury | Court held Holt is not inconsistent with Haynes; Holt concerns counsel’s tactical choices when evidence shows unfitness, not the statutory demand right |
| Mootness of appeal after restoration to fitness and guilty pleas | State implied the issue might be moot given restoration and pleas | McCoy invoked capable-of-repetition and public-interest exceptions to preserve review | Court applied capable-of-repetition and public-interest exceptions and reached the merits |
| Whether trial court’s ignoring of personal jury demand affects jurisdiction or requires reversal | State did not press a contrary statutory interpretation in briefing; raised arguments at oral argument (forfeited) | McCoy argued the statutory right would be meaningless if courts could ignore a personal demand | Court reversed and remanded for failure to honor the statutory right to a jury demand |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Haynes, 174 Ill.2d 204 (Ill. 1996) (interpreting “the defense” in §104-12 to include the defendant and allowing a defendant to be part of the decision to demand a jury)
- People v. Holt, 2014 IL 116989 (Ill. 2014) (holding counsel need not advocate for a finding of fitness when evidence clearly shows unfitness; limited to counsel’s advocacy role)
- People v. Manning, 76 Ill.2d 235 (Ill. 1979) (no constitutional right to a jury for fitness hearings; statutory right is provided by the legislature)
- In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill.2d 345 (Ill. 2009) (describing mootness exceptions, including capable-of-repetition and public-interest)
- People v. Rita P., 2014 IL 115798 (Ill. 2014) (setting criteria for applying the public-interest exception to mootness)