People v. Montgomery
118 N.E.3d 673
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- In July 2015 Prince D. Montgomery was stopped; deputy Jason Plichta testified to DUI indicia (lane crossings, speed, odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, concealment of an empty alcohol bottle, and poor field sobriety test performance). Defendant presented no evidence.
- The State was ordered to produce the squad-car video; Plichta recorded the stop but the video was never retrievable—either never uploaded to the cloud or irretrievably lost; IT could not recover it.
- Defendant moved for a sanction and requested a nonpattern jury instruction allowing an adverse inference that lost/destroyed evidence would be against the State; the trial court denied the motion and refused the instruction.
- During voir dire the court failed to ask one juror whether he understood/accepted that the defendant need not present evidence (a Rule 431(b) issue); defendant did not object at trial.
- The jury convicted defendant of DUI (alcohol) and two traffic offenses; acquitted on DUI (drugs). Defendant appealed denying the instruction and asserting plain-error Rule 431(b) violation given allegedly closely balanced evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Montgomery) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing adverse-inference instruction for missing squad-car video | Instruction not required; no evidence of bad faith or that video would have contradicted officer; no showing content/quality was ‘in issue’ | Missing video entitled defendant to an instruction that jurors may infer the lost evidence would be against the State | Court: No abuse of discretion — defendant’s theory was insufficiency of proof, not that the video would contradict officer’s observations, so requested instruction was not supported by the evidence |
| Whether failure to ask one juror Rule 431(b) question is plain error (forfeited at trial) | Any Rule 431(b) omission here did not produce a biased jury; evidence was not closely balanced, so plain-error relief is not warranted | Error in voir dire; because the error was forfeited, reversal is required under plain-error doctrine because the evidence was closely balanced | Court: Rule 431(b) violation occurred but not plain error — evidence was not closely balanced given strong, unrefuted officer testimony; no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (failure to preserve evidence implicates due process only on a showing of bad faith; court discussed, but did not rely on, an adverse-inference instruction)
- People v. Danielly, 274 Ill. App. 3d 358 (1995) (appellate court indicated an adverse-inference instruction may be appropriate where missing evidence would be relevant to contested facts)
- People v. Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d 472 (1984) (establishes jury voir dire principles requiring jurors understand/accept presumption of innocence, burden of proof, defendant's right not to present evidence, and right not to testify)
- People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584 (2008) (discusses when a case turns on a credibility contest such that evidence may be considered closely balanced)