*1 (No. 100257. ILLINOIS,
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Appel- KLEBANOWSKI, lee, v. ROBERT Appellant. 22, Opinion June 2006. filed *2 Brandstrader, Chicago, Thomas C. for appellant. General, Madigan, Attorney Springfield, Lisa (Linda Devine, Attorney, Chicago Richard A. State’s D. Woloshin, General, Attorney Chicago, Assistant Fitzgerald, Spellberg, James E. Alan J. Annette Collins Connors, Attorneys, and Matthew Assistant State’s counsel), People. for the of the judgment
JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered court, opinion. Kil- Fitzgerald,
Chief Justice Thomas and Justices bride, Garman, judgment and Karmeier concurred opinion. dissented, opinion.
Justice McMorrow
OPINION Following trial, a bench the circuit court of Cook County guilty defendant, Klebanowski, found Robert (720 (West 2002)) armed degree ILCS and first 5/18—2 (720 murder based on the commission of a 1(a)(3) (West 2002)). ILCS The circuit court sen 5/9 — years imprisonment tenced defendant to 20 for the judgment murder but did not enter on the armed rob bery charge. appellate court affirmed. No. 1—04— 23). (unpublished Supreme under Rule order Court (177 315) granted appeal We defendant leave to Ill. 2d R. judgment appellate and now affirm the court.
BACKGROUND February Chicago police 7, 2002, On officers arrested robbery Gary connection with the Szparkowski and the death of Robert Winters. Defendant rights gave a statement waived constitutional Attorney. handwritten the assistant State’s Subsequently, gave videotaped statement. living had in a Defendant stated that he been Cloud *3 days. motel, motel for five Winters also lived at the with girlfriend, February 7, 2002, his Carla Mitchell. On burglarized taking home, and two Winters $180 handgun-style guns, BB black and one silver. Mitch- one keep guns BB ell refused to allow Winters to the their gave guns Consequently, BB Winters the to motel room. along safekeeping, from the $20 defendant burglary. day, proceeds returned of the Later that Winters give gun. him a BB He asked defendant to for the black city up to some ride to the money because he wanted “make gave somebody.” agreed and Defendant —rob pickup Chevrolet Winters a ride defendant’s black city until Defendant and Winters drove around truck. pulling garage spotted off red into a Winters vehicle alley Narragansett BB Avenue. With the at 5128 S. to rob waist, garage ran toward his Winters gun at stayed in the Chev- Defendant vehicle. driver alley, until on the street truck, parked rolet pickup had been Winters that Assuming gunshots. he heard to the Cloud returned shot, the scene and left defendant motel, told Mitchell defendant At motel. he believed someone and attempted had rob Winters asked defendant had shot. Mitchell been Winters already police being ride back to the area. give her a couple Mitchell off a scene, dropped at defendant and to the motel. away blocks returned statement, defendant was asked: videotaped In the man get money you from “Now, gonna if was that, you assuming give some going were he was was, possible, “That right?” Defendant answered: statement, however, defendant yeah.” In the handwritten him going give some stated that Winters was positively Also in the handwrit- of the from the proceeds statement, job ten stated that his was to be driver. getaway murder,
Charged with At by jury. trial pled guilty waived trial, Gary a lieutenant ensuing Szparkowski, bench that on Febru- Chicago police department, testified 7, 2002, p.m. his ended 6:30 He went to ary shift at clothes, in civilian and returned to restaurant dressed approxi- Avenue at Narragansett his home at 5128 S. garage alley, his mately p.m. 10:10 He accessed parking space, truck into the pickup backed pickup as he of the the vehicle. Just closed door exited placed gun to the middle of his forehead. truck, Winters ducked, grabbed the barrel of Szparkowski Lieutenant to access his attempting one hand while gun regained control own with the other hand. Winters gun however, gun top at the placed gun, *4 He Szparkowski’s head. demanded that Lieutenant wallet, Lieutenant him Szparkowski give and Lieuten- Szparkowski ant complied. Winters then turned ran the garage with the in couple wallet hand. Within a seconds, Szparkowski recovered, Lieutenant drew his gun gave pursuit. Szparkowski Lieutenant an- nounced his Winters, office ordered to stop. Winters who was feet approximately alley, down the stopped turned, gun wallet one hand and the pointed Lieutenant Lieuten- Szparkowski’s direction. Szparkowski ant fired two three shots at Winters. Winters turned and steps. took a few more Lieutenant Szparkowski continued to fire until fell first Winters face ground gun. to the and dropped the Lieutenant Szparkowski identified the black BB gun, which re- Magnum, sembled a .357 weapon as Winters used also Szparkowski Lieutenant identified his that, wallet and stated time robbery, at the of the he had $50, cards, his credit and his identification in the cards wallet. officer,
Joseph Mclnerney, Chicago police testified 7, 2002, approximately p.m. February that at 10:10 on heard a that an dispatch danger officer was in and shots Narragansett had been fired at 5128 S. He ar- Avenue. at alley rived two to three later and found minutes Winters on the ground, gun approxi- facedown mately away. three feet Lieutenant wallet Szparkowski’s sight. Mclnerney was not then in Officer called for an arrived, rolled paramedics they ambulance. When Winters onto his back aid him. provide medical wallet Szparkowski’s Lieutenant was underneath Win- body. ter’s Chicago depart- Kelly police
Detective Tom testified he arrived at S. Narragansett ment 10:45 minutes approximately p.m. Avenue at Fifteen woman, Mitchell, later, he later identified as observed police tape police lift the and run toward the officers.
543 boyfriend. Follow- was her yelled that Winters Mitchell Mitchell, Kelly pro- Detective a conversation with ing motel, and a looking the defendant Cloud ceeded In the motel truck. black, pickup late model Chevrolet lot, saw 2002 Chevrolet S-10 Kelly Detective parking given by Mitchell. truck, matching description the pickup belonged truck pickup revealed that the plate The license the motel desk Kelly Detective then asked defendant. and the truck identify pickup clerk to owner directed The desk clerk staying. in which he was room Defendant identi- Kelly to defendant’s room. Detective Kelly placed him arrest. fied himself and Detective under officer, Bembynista, Chicago processed Joseph police Narragansett alley scene at 5128 S. Avenue. on Winters’ He various bullet wounds photographed wallet, appeared to be a body, Szparkowski’s what He gun, separated. with the chamber area and barrel alley nine from the and a cartridge also recovered cases gone through nearby garage fired bullet that had wall Bembynista identified lodged in a coffee can. Officer gun alley recovered from the as a Crosman C02- firing or a powered pistol, capable pellet a .177-caliber in the steel BB. Officer found no evidence al- Bembynista ley gun discharged. that BB had been proceeded by way stipulation. Barry
The trial then Lifshultz, examiner, County an assistant Cook medical performed body testify an autopsy on Winters’ would gunshot that died of wounds. Curt Mur- multiple Winters identification, ray, expert testify an in firearms would cartridge alley the nine cases recovered from Luger, matching were all fired from a nine-millimeter Townsend, gun. Judy Szparkowski’s Lieutenant Chicago department, fire would paramedic with and her rolled Winters over in an testify partner she lifesaving procedures. Winters was attempt perform The judge at the trial allowed the breathing time. stipulations and admitted them into evidence. The trial judge also admitted into evidence the State’s exhibits including autopsy report, gun, BB and defendant’s statements. guilty
The trial found of armed rob- bery. Specifically, judge gun the trial found that BB bludgeon. used Winters awas judge trial found also that defendant aided abetted planning Winters robbery.According and commission of the armed judge, “provided
to the trial platform, platform the mobile moved both Mr. weapon Winters and the into area where the lieuten- *6 guilty Next, ant was.” the trial found court defendant felony predicate murder based on the offense of armed robbery. during The found court that Winters was killed robbery the commission the armed and defendant was responsible principles for the death under of account- ability. judge years The trial sentenced defendant to 20 imprisonment for murder did a but not enter judgment predicate or sentence for the offense of armed robbery. appellate rejected
The court affirmed. The court first argument legally responsible defendant’s he that was not robbery. for armed court The noted that defendant spotted person drove Winters around until Winters pickup Further, truck, rob. when Winters exited the defendant that rob knew Winters intended to Lieutenant Szparkowski. give Defendant believed that Winters would part proceeds him and waited for Winters’ return. court also noted that defendant did not withdraw enterprise by depriving prior the criminal ef- giving warning timely effectiveness, forts to law making proper officials, enforcement prevent effort robbery. Next, the commission of the armed rejected argument appellate court defendant’s robbery, escape is not an element of armed he could responsible after murder occurred for a not be held robbery. completion The court noted the armed escape from a of an if the course occurs felony- robbery, escape operation within the Lastly, for noted that a conviction murder rule. requires death be the that the victim’s murder felony. proximate defendant’s result direct and knowingly unlaw- that “defendant’s The court concluded weapon transporting both Winters and ful actions Szparkowski robbed set motion where to the area leading death.” to Winters’ a chain of events appeal. granted petition for leave We defendant’s 177 Ill. 2d R. 315.
ANALYSIS argues appeal, defendant evidence his brief on robbery. prove guilty him of armed was insufficient Particularly, argues gun BB that the Winters operable used was not and could be considered weapon robbery purposes. Defendant also by leaving gun- argues that, scene he heard when shots, he withdrew from the armed and could Lastly, not be held accountable for Winters’ actions. argues did the State not show that had specific required intent for the commission of armed rob- bery. argument, however, At defendant admitted his oral liability for the armed Defendant’s counsel *7 specifically “Mr. did there was stated: yes Judge. Klebanowski know contesting robbery, Kle- a We are not Mr. accountability rob- for the offense of armed banowski’s bery.” later, rebuttal, in counsel stated: Yet defendant’s hope “I is Mr. is it clear to this court that Klebanowski accountability arguing robbery.” In his for not the armed light only concession, defendant’s we consider arguments to defendant’s convictionfor the crime related felony murder. argues he should not held account-
Defendant that be able for murder felony because Winters was killed after robbery armed had ended. Citing Dennis, People v. (1998), 181 Ill. 2d defendant maintains that neither flight pursuing nor victims escape included as an robbery. element of Thus, defendant, according robbery, armed and defendant’s in participation criminal enterprise, ended when Winters exited the garage the wallet in subsequent hand. Winters’ death could be considered a murder because predicate ended before Lieutenant Szparkowski shot killed Winters. has long
It
been the
in
rule
Illinois that a defendant
held
may be
a death
responsible
during
that occurs
escape following
an
the commission
felony.
forcible
in
Thus,
People
(1934),
he not a in participant was then custody officer; under arrest and of an robbery was failed completed; that evidence to show any design kill; previous plan and that he neither killing. aided nor abetted rejected these arguments, reasoning: recognized principle
“It
also a
that where two or
law
persons
engaged
conspiracy
more
are
to commit rob-
*8
pursuit
in immediate
is
while
an officer murdered
bery and
attempting
of
offenders who are
of either
both
the fruits of the
the crime with
from the scene of
escape
both,
crime of
possession
of one or
robbery, either
murder, inasmuch
complete at the time of the
robbery is not
way,
won their
even
had not then
conspirators
as
temporary safety,
pos
and the
momentarily,
place
to a
of
scrambling
nothing more than a
plunder
was
session
evidence
possession.
Here the uncontradicted
[Citation.]
the crime
conspirators designed to commit
shows that the
deadly
use
robbery through
weapon.
the use of a
That
the victims and the means
the intimidation of
included
the intent
escape.
such circumstances
the offenders’
Under
away
obtaining
carrying
the loot
kill, necessary,
if
and
to
if
robbery would be futile
plan
A
to commit
established.
escape
proceeds
comprehend
it did not
an
inseparable.
crime.
are
Unless
These factual circumstances
victim, and, if
terrify
occasion
to
plan
any person
apprehend
them
attempting
to kill
requires,
immediately
gaining possession
upon
time of or
at the
Here
inane
child-like.
Bon
property,
it would be
and
giorno
gain
release
make his
attempting
and
use
by
scene of the crime not
of a
escape
none,
weapon,
his endeavors were
deadly
had
but
He
co-
persuasion
representations.
false
knew that his
and
conspirator
gun.
He knew that he had
was armed with
gone
Compton’s
come up
out of
office. He saw him
hand,
officer,
stairway
gun in
behind the
and shoot
warning King’s approach,
gave
him in the
He
no
back.
attempted
he ran and
but when the officer reeled
fell
away.
hide
He
himself until he was arrested
concealed
police
argue
It is vain
that the
by other
officers.
necessary,
as a
if
the commission
part,
was not included
Bongiorno
Bang
had deliber
of the crime which both
Bongiorno,
ately planned.”
See also
In the at death as he ef- case Winters’ occurred following escape fected the commission the armed robbery. A the during that occurs course an the escape operation from a forcible is within defendant Consequently, the rule. be held hable for Winters’ death. Dennis, 87, reliance on Ill. 2d to the
Defendant’s
Dennis,
testified
contrary
the defendant
unavailing.
is
to
Jones’ home.
that he and his fiancee drove
Earnest
Jones,
the three drove to
location
picking up
After
to
heroin. The defen
Chicago
purchase
the intent
car in an
Jones to exit
parked
alley
dant
the
allowed
car to
defendant
purchase.
effectuate
While
waiting,
and his
were
the defendant saw Jones
fiancee
being
chased toward the car
an unknown male. Jones
jumped
car,
into the
go,
told the defendant
off,
sped
believing there had been a “drug
bust.” When Jones
car,
reentered the defendant’s
Jones
carrying
small
time,
radio
his hand. Prior to this
the defendant had
seen
the radio and did not know
gotten
from where Jones
had
radio. Jones subse-
quently told the defendant
that he had taken the radio
“guys” chasing
from the
The jury
him.
convicted the
robbery
of armed
on theory
accountability.
appellate
The
court reversed and remanded for a new
trial because the trial judge
jury
told the
consider
period of
time
the activities involved in
to a
escaping
place
safety
in determining whether
the defendant
robbery.
was accountable for armed
In the
subsequent
State’s
appeal,
began
court
its
analysis by
considering
nature of
Cit
accountability.
(720
2(c)
ing
accountability
Illinois
statute
ILCS 5/5 —
(West 1992)), the
held
ac
person
legally
countable for another’s criminal conduct when either
during
offense,
before or
of an
the commission
and with
commission,
intent
or
promote
facilitate such
solicits,
abets,
aids,
agrees or
such
attempts to aid
other
person in
planning
commission
the offense.
court noted that the
only
defendant could
be accountable
robbery
armed
if he aided or abetted
prior
Jones
commission
during
to or
Dennis,
offense.
Next,
2d at
Ill.
96.
the court considered
the elements
determine the duration
commis
of the armed
sion
The court observed:
flight
pursuing
nor
escape
“Neither
victims
statutory
an
rob
included as
element
definition of
*11
1(a)(West1994).Thus,
bery.See 720 ILCS
consistent
5/18—
(1980)],
[People Smith,
From the Dennis
court’s
draw a
robbery,
general
an element of
defendant seeks to
during
escape following
rule
an
killing
committed
commission
robbery
be
cannot
considered
Thus,
murder.
defendant would have us abandon the
rule
escape
Bongiorno
and overrule
its
note
Den
progeny.
require.
Dennis does
so
We
approval
holding
nis court cited with
those authorities
that,
escape
if
occurs
the course of an
felony-
robbery,
escape
operation
is within the
Dennis,
Further,
murder rule.
“Felony persons committing murder seeks to deter from by holding forcible them responsible felonies for murder if a death results. of extremely [Citation.] Because the violent felony murder, of nature we seek the broadest bounds for the of liability. reason, attachment criminal For that felony murder, a liability defendant’s not is limited to his culpability of underlying felony. for commission A may guilty defendant be found of felony regardless murder [citation], of a lack either of intent to commit murder or [citation]. even connivance with a codefendant Our proximate continued adherence approach to a cause of exemplary broadly further how we seek to extend liability felony reaches criminal case murder. [Citation.] felony murder,
Unlike
accountability
on
focuses
degree
culpability
offender
and seeks to deter
persons
intentionally aiding
encouraging
com
Holding
mission of offenses.
a defendant who neither
participate
intends to
in the commission of an
nor
offense
knowledge
has
that an offense has been committed ac
countable
does not serve
rule’s deterrent effect.
Further,
liability
the attachment of
in such situations
general
contravenes
concepts
culpability.
criminal
felony-murder escape
contemplates
knowledge
rule
neither
Thus,
nor intent.
the rule is irreconcilable with
ac
our
Dennis,
countability statute ***.”
Next, argues we should abandon the proximate theory theory cause adopt agency imposition liability felony-murder under rule. unfair, Defendant maintains that it violation of process, due to hold liable for murder is at killing agent. when the the hands of an innocent Again, we decline defendant’s invitation overrule precedent. settled (1997), 2d People Lowery, 178 Ill. length between the theories the differences
reviewed at liability upon conviction which proximate explained that, under the The court be based. any liability proximately theory, death attaches “for cause activity notwithstanding resulting from unlawful — resisting crime.” one fact that the theory, agency Lowery, 2d at 465. Under 178 Ill. “ a kill does extend to ‘the doctrine of murder *13 felony, although growing ing, out of the commissionof the directly the to the act of one other than if attributable him in unlawful or associated with the defendant enterprise.’ those theory, agency [Citations.] Thus, the under felony-murder inapplicable where the rule resisting felony.” by Lowery, Ill. 2d 178 is done one compared adopting case The Illinois law at 466. court liability proximate theory implementing the cause of legal jurisdictions from fol authorities sister which theory Lowery, agency liability. Ill. 2d at low the 178 The of the 465-66. legislature court also considered intent finding drafting felony-murder statute,
in legislature proximate intended to adhere theory liability. Lowery, Ill. cause 178 2d at 467-69. explained: The court any recognize language, express implied,
“[W]e fail felony that would allow murder to be treated like all other dangerousness offenses. of forcible It is inherent differentiates felonies felonies. them nonforcible noted in committee comments of the [Citation.] As statute, ‘it established in Illinois to is well recognizing inher the extent of the forcible as so ently dangerous occurring in course homicide thereof, though accidentally, should be held without even proof “strong probability” clas further to be within the 1, Ann. sification of murder.’ 720 ILCS Committee 5/9 — (Smith-Hurd 1993). 1961, 15 This dif at Comments — legislature’s protecting ferentiation reflects the concern for general populace deterring criminals from acts Ill. Lowery, violence.” 2d at 468-69.
Following this review, exhaustive the court concluded inappropriate proximate that it would be to abandon the theory liability. cause
Citing dissenting opinion Justice Bilandic (1998) People (Bilandic, Dekens, 247, J., 182 Ill. 2d J.), dissenting, joined by sug McMorrow, defendant also gests process, unfair, that it is and a violation due him hold liable for murder where the murder argues, is a in essence, victim cofelon. Defendant that he cofelon, did not foresee or assume the risk that his during enterprise Winters, would be killed the criminal consequently, and, he should not be held liable for more, Winters’ death. Once we decline defendant’s invita tion. precise by
The
defendant,
issue raised
whether a
cofelon,
be held liable
the death
of a
Lowery,
was considered
the court in Dekens. As in
engaged
precedent
an extensive review Illinois
supporting
proximate
theory
li
use
cause
ability,
legislature’s
enacting
felony-
and the
intent
Dekens,
murder statute.
We defendant does not dissenting opinion other than those advanced au- by Indeed, thored Justice Bilandic. defendant his writes any “argument composed stated more cannot be nor *** clarity by than it Bilan- was stated the late Justice arguments dic.” This court had the benefit of policy by raised the dissenters in Dekens. considerations position adopt not to court determined advanced light thorough of Justice Bilandic. of the review theory liability proximate contained cause of recency principles Dekens, decision, of the (see 461, 464 People 2d Robinson, 187 Ill. v. decisis stare Engineering, Speed 166 Ill. (1999); Pasquale Products proximate (1995)), that the also we determine 337, 349 2d theory applicable liability to the theory is the cause at bar. case guilty rob judge defendant found
The trial degree commission bery on the murder based and first proceedings find felony. the trial reviewed have We conse foreseeable a direct death was that Winters’ Lowery, robbery. 2d at 178 Ill. quence See the armed Szparkowski hand Lieutenant ordered 470. Winters grabbed from the wallet, and fled wallet, over garage. gave Szparkowski and shot chase Lieutenant pointed gun BB turned, as Winters Winters commit forcible “Those who lieutenant. toward they resistance, both encounter know felonies escape.” any subsequent actions and their affirmative unimportant is Hickman, Ill. 2d at 94. It sequence precise anticipate did not Weconclude the armed that followed events precipitated events, and those acts unlawful defendant’s Lowery, consequences. responsible See for 2d at 470. Ill.
CONCLUSION judg- reasons, affirm we the aforementioned For appellate court. ment judgment
Appellate affirmed. dissenting: McMORROW, JUSTICE argues his convic- bar, at In the case degree on the commission murder based for first tion murder) (felony because it stand cannot in- premised hands of an at the the death of a cofelon on proxi- agent. abandon that we He advocates nocent theory agency theory in favor of cause mate imposition liability rule. The under the *15 majority reaffirms this court’s adherence to proxi mate cause theory for imposing liability affirms defendant’s conviction relying on People Dekens, (1998), Ill. 2d 247 wherein it was held that “denying li ability when the decedent is a cofelon would conflict with the legislature’s adoption of the proximate cause theory.” Respectfully, I I disagree. joined Justice Bilandic’s dis sent in Dekens and continue to maintain application proximate cause theory does not compel us to impose liability for murder under rule when the deceased is a Moreover, cofelon. I find the proximate cause theory particularly inapplicable under the facts of the present case. Dekens, Justice presented Bilandic cogent reasons
for rejecting an interpretation of the felony-murder rule which permit would a defendant to be held liable for murder when the life that is taken in the course of a forcible felony is that of a coparticipant underlying felony. Justice Bilandic wrote:
“When a defendant’s commission of a forcible proximately results in the death of an party, innocent I agree charging the defendant with murder comport justice with notions of is, and fairness. There however, simply qualitative difference between that situ- ation and the presented here, situation where the death which resulted was that of a coparticipant underly- in the ing felony. As one renowned treatise on criminal law has noted: generally
‘[I]t is accepted now that there is no liability murder when one of the felons is shot and victim, officer, killed police bystander or a ***. plausible A more explanation [for this conclusion] is feeling justice that it is not (though may it poetic be justice) to hold the felon liable for murder on account death, intend, which the felon did not of a co- willingly felon participating risky in venture. It is true it is no defense to intentional homicide crimes voluntarily that the victim placed danger himself in *16 ***. But with the defendant hands of death at the proper to take killings it would seem unintended ***.’ into account W. willing participation victim’s 7.5, § Scott, Law 2 Substantive Criminal & A. LaFave (1986). at 217-18 for how majority provides explanation no by apply doctrine is served felony-murder
purpose of the
Rather,
majority’s holding
this.
ing it in cases such as
‘compels’
theory
this
cause
simply
proximate
***
cofelon
Where a
disagree
this conclusion.
I
result.
cause of the death
most direct
by
party,
third
is killed
felony, not the defen
in the
participation
is the cofelon’s
characterization,
majority’s
Contrary to the
acts.
dant’s
‘guilt or innocence’
go
does not
to the
this distinction
Rather,
pertains
this distinction
the decedent.
are not
Significantly,
death.
we
‘proximate cause’ of the
liability,
an issue of
considering
of tort
hut
here
an issue
degree murder with the
liability for first
imposing criminal
view,
my
In
the distinc
consequences that entails.
severe
killing
party
an innocent
and a
party
a third
tion between
ac
participant
in the
must be
party
third
the same
weight.
illogical
It
to conclude that
corded
a defendant’s
degree
guilt
should attach where
where it
party
of an innocent
results in the death
felony.”
in the
participant
in the death of an active
results
Dekens,
original.)
Ill. 2d at 256-57
(Emphasis
in
J.).
McMorrow,
(Bilandic, J.,
joined by
dissenting,
Here,
explain why
majority
fails
again,
by apply-
doctrine is served
purpose
Moreover,
fails
majority
as this.
it in cases such
ing
theory,
cause
analyze
apply
proximate
properly
case.
present
under the facts of the
particularly
bar,
drove his friend Winters
In the case at
intended to commit
knowing that Winters
Chicago,
into
Chicago,
in
they
there.
arrived
robbery
an armed
When
rob-
for a suitable
exited defendant’s car to look
Winters
for Winters to
the car
bery victim. Defendant waited
Winters with
provide
that defendant could
return so
transportation
city.
out of the Winters never returned to
car, however,
defendant’s
because after Winters commit-
robbery,
by
ted an armed
Winters was shot and killed
happened
off-duty police
victim, who
to be an
officer.
recognized
proximate
As
Dekens,
“the focus of the
theory
cause
is on the chain of events set in motion
Dekens,
the defendant.”
(No. 100555. Appellees, SOLAIA TECHNOLOGY, LLC, et al., Ap- SPECIALTY al., PUBLISHING COMPANYet pellants. 22,
Opinion June 2006. filed