People v. Neese
31 N.E.3d 373
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant Timothy Neese was phoned by Officer Paul Derry about alleged thefts of coins from a building laundry machine; Neese said he would come in to give a written statement and wanted the complainant present.
- On the phone, Derry told Neese he would be willing to consider charging him with a misdemeanor if Neese gave a full written confession; Derry did not guarantee any outcome, mention pleas, or discuss sentencing.
- Neese described taking about $50 on multiple occasions and agreed to come in, but he never appeared. Derry later obtained authorization from an assistant State’s Attorney to charge a felony and did not tell the ASA about any misdemeanor promise.
- Neese moved to suppress his statements, contending they were made during a plea discussion and thus inadmissible under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402(f). The trial court granted suppression, treating the confession as equivalent to an offer to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser charge.
- The State appealed; the appellate court reviewed the suppression ruling de novo as to legal correctness, but deferred to factual findings unless against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements were made during a plea discussion under Rule 402(f) | Statements were not plea discussions; they were ordinary admissions to police and thus admissible | Statements were plea-related because Neese reasonably believed he was negotiating for a lesser charge and confessing in exchange | Court held statements were not plea discussions; Rule 402(f) did not bar admission |
| Whether defendant subjectively intended to plead guilty in exchange for a concession | N/A (State argues no plea intent) | Neese claims he expected a plea negotiation and plea-related protection | Court found no subjective expectation of pleading guilty |
| Whether any subjective expectation to plea was objectively reasonable | State: objective circumstances did not support a plea negotiation | Neese: his belief was reasonable given officer's offer to consider misdemeanor | Court held any expectation would not be objectively reasonable given officer’s lack of authority and references to consulting the State’s Attorney |
| Whether officer promised a misdemeanor (fact question) | Derry testified he only offered to consider a lesser charge, not promise one | Defendant argued officer promised misdemeanor in exchange for confession | Court found that any finding of an actual promise was against the manifest weight; Derry at most said he would consider a lesser charge |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Close, 238 Ill. 2d 497 (deference to trial court’s factual findings on suppression) (court relied on Close for standard of review)
- People v. Rivera, 2013 IL 112467 (Illinois Supreme Court) (two-part test for plea-related statements: subjective expectation and objective reasonableness)
- United States v. Melina, 868 F. Supp. 1178 (D. Minn. 1994) (distinguished because prosecutor, not merely officer, authorized promise of lesser charge)