People v. Voltaire
941 N.E.2d 270
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- No. 2-09-0925; People appeals from Kane County Circuit Court judgment; Voltaire charged with unlawful delivery and unlawful possession of a controlled substance; destruction of the alleged substance occurred during pretrial delays; defense moved to dismiss on due-process grounds; trial court granted dismissal; State appeals arguing Fisher controls and Newberry is overruled by Fisher; appellate court reverses and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fisher governs due process when evidence is inadvertently destroyed. | State argues Fisher supersedes Newberry; no due-process violation. | Voltaire argues Newberry applies and requires dismissal. | Fisher governs; no due-process violation established. |
| Whether the trial court erred by applying Newberry's outcome-determinative test. | State contends Fisher requires reversal of Newberry-based ruling. | Voltaire argues lockstep approach may still apply and Newberry could be valid. | Court applies Fisher and reverses; Newberry not controlling. |
| Whether the destruction was in bad faith and thus a discovery sanction or due-process violation. | State asserts no bad faith; discovery sanction not imposed; due process not violated. | Voltaire contends possible sanction or due-process issue. | Record shows no bad faith; not a basis to affirm dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (preservation failure not a due-process violation where evidence was not mandatory to exculpate)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (good/bad faith irrelevant when evidence is potentially useful and no exculpatory disclosure)
- Newberry, 166 Ill. 2d 310 (Ill. 1995) (outcome-determinative evidence destruction requires dismissal even without bad faith)
- Fisher, 540 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2004) (rejected Newberry; held evidence was potentially useful; environment of good faith not dispositive)
- Kizer, 365 Ill. App. 3d 949 (Ill. App. 2006) (predicted Fisher would overrule Newberry; discusses lockstep approach)
- Caballes, 221 Ill. 2d 282 (Ill. 2006) (lockstep deference; limitations on departing from federal alignment)
- Pecoraro, 175 Ill. 2d 294 (Ill. 1997) (acknowledges federalism considerations in due-process interpretation)
- Sutherland, 223 Ill. 2d 187 (Ill. 2006) (addressed whether Newberry should be overruled; upheld application of Newberry in that case)