*1 ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF v. JENNARAH LIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. WIL Second District No. 2 — 93—0822 September Opinion filed 1994. *2 Robinson, Ltd., Robinson, E. Chicago,
Edward of Edward E. of for appellant. (William Waller, Attorney, Waukegan Browers, Michael J. State’s of L. Biderman, Mannchen,
Robert J. Attorneys David E. all of State’s Appellate Office, counsel), People. Prosecutor’s of for
JUSTICE opinion BOWMAN delivered the of the court: Defendant, Williams, Jennarah jury was convicted of two resisting counts of arrest two battery. counts of criminal On one count of year the court sentenced defendant to one supervision, fine, community $100 50 hours of service. On battery count she to a one-year was sentenced conditional dis- charge, concurrently supervision served with her court resisting arrest; $100; a fine of and 50 additional hours of community service. On appeal defendant raises discovery numerous eviden- tiary issues, against her, claims trial court was biased and asserts (1) denying trial court erred in quash her motion to arrest and (2) (3) evidence, suppress denying mistrial, refusing her motion for (4) her, instruction tendered allowing State refile charges previously nol-prossed. We affirm. morning 23, 1991, driving
On the of December defendant was automobile eastbound on Grandville area Avenue a residential Village intersection, approached of Gurnee. As police pulling up sign Gurnee officer Kotrba was stop cross street the intersection. The officer that there was no observed plate Since did license front defendant’s auto. Grandville sign, proceeded stop not have enter intersection though, testimony, according even to defendant’s Kotrba drove way stop. she afraid he would not After defendant by him, plate Kotrba that her rear license reflected passed observed registration. an Illinois Kotrba then turned onto Grandville speed immediately his up followed defendant but did not activate lights, signal stop. A number of siren or or otherwise to defendant to later, blocks, stops stopped and several turns and Kotrba defendant. directly that the behind her the Defendant testified officer her, delayed activating time he followed while Kotrba said he whole caught lights up until defendant. anything According testimony, say Kotrba to defendant’s did just He She asked to her first. walked toward front of car. something wrong, if there was but Kotrba did not answer. He walked finally car and back to driver’s around to the back came plate her she had front license and had failed window and told for her signal a left turn she made off Grandville. The officer asked contra- name and address rather than her driver’s license. Kotrba testimony, claiming he six defendant for her license dicted asked said did not the officer her name because times. Defendant she why stopped as to he had her sooner puzzled and confused *3 stop. give her by his Because she would not and conduct after and, later, name, backup a few minutes Kotrba called for several converged cars on the area. patrol going A man opened her car door to see what was on.
Defendant plain with Kotrba and then came over to her spoke clothes dressed Although testimony said, "baby girl, you can’t do this.” her and car during direct examination impeached, was later defendant stated police found identify himself as officer. that the man did She After man Gurnee Police Chief John Ward. out later that the against cold to close the car door few moments defendant started this,” her, air, stopped "enough said he had had but Ward that right by the through grabbed the door defendant and reached and wrist, her Defendant, turn, grabbed and Ward told Ward’s wrist. she immediately demanded that him When defendant to turn loose. gave then Ward her Defendant go, be let Ward released wrist. also The turned stepped of her car. license her driver’s license and out going take they told her were to suspended, to be so the out Kincaid, officer, Sergeant put handcuffs A to the female her station. defendant, squad back car. placed she in the on Ward testimony of Officer Kotrba and Chief respective leading against charges defendant to regarding the occurrence following sequence similar very of events. When revealed scene, squatted down next to arrived at Chief Ward kneeled car, badge, open her window of defendant’s showed his identified problem. police, himself and asked if there was a She as chief responded pulled that Kotrba had her over for no reason. Ward told signaling that Kotrba stated she turned without had plate. explained front He that Kotrba needed driver’s license citations, license two and she would then be allowed to leave. to issue Ward for three or times before asked defendant’s driver’s license four Kotrba him the car registered told the license owner of had registered suspended. description been of the owner matched request that of the defendant. Defendant refused still another for her license, commenting nothing driver’s to the that she done effect had wrong picking Officer on Kotrba was her. they then going
The officers told defendant were to have to place driving suspended her under arrest for license. Still insisting nothing had wrong, done she said was not going and, Kotrba, anywhere according to locked her car door. Ward through then open open reached window the door from the inside, began up and defendant to roll put the window. Kotrba his weight it, hand, stop on the window to grasped Ward’s scratching palm deeply enough to draw blood. Ward released the grabbed inside doorknob and hold of defendant’s wrist restrain her. Kotrba try then also reached inside the vehicle unlock the door, away. slapped try, his hand On a second Kotrba successfully opened door, the car stepped and the two away officers from the vehicle. At point defendant offered her driver’s license which, indeed, suspended. had got been She then out her car and placed squad in the back Sergeant cars until Kincaid, had Ward, who been called to the scene Kotrba and arrived. upset Kincaid testified that defendant was in that she seemed angry nervous and about the whole situation. Defendant was not uncooperative and seemed Kincaid confused about what was going on.
Defendant was missing issued traffic citations for the license plate, driving suspended license, with a driver’s for failure signal a left turn. She a complaint was also served criminal *4 battery. traffic The matters were in in January resolved due course 1992, battery charge and the prosecution. was dismissed for want of resisting charge initially arrest this filed case under a citation but in January was dismissed 1992 for failure to file formal charges. charge An information battery subsequently on of filed and docketed but nol-prossed July 1992. The informations 86 case, arrest, battery resisting August
this and were filed in 1992. initially filed, charge At some after de- time complaint concerning fendant a letter wrote of the incident to police department. complaint Gurnee She filed a also with Lake department County. Following sheriff’s of her conviction and motion, post-trial appeal. the denial of defendant filed this presents 11 Defendant issues for our consideration. The bulk court, discovery evidentiary rulings by these of involve trial However, variety regard and the remainder of errors. with assert issues, totally comply to number of defendant’s brief fails with requirements supreme Supreme set Court forth our court. (134 341(e)(7) 341(e)(7))clearly argument Rule Ill. 2d R. states that the of appellant’s section brief "shall contain the contentions of therefor, appellant reasons with citation authorities copied not be at pages and the of the record relied on. Evidence shall length, pages be to the of the record on but reference shall made *** appeal may evidence be found.” Each of defendant’s issues where I, II, IV, VI, discussion, and XI with no paragraph consists upon, relied no pages references to the of the record citation Moreover, clearly any authority. the discussions do not set forth reasoning underlying those conten defendant’s contentions or Rather, state a few facts and then announce tions. some them conclusory allegation, do how but not show the conclusion simply make bald assertions or accusations with reached. Others argued supported by Points citation all. raised authority satisfy requirements Supreme to relevant do not 341(e)(7) 341(e)(7)) (134 may 2d Ill. R. be deemed Court Rule 455.) (1992), Ill. 2d A contention (People waived. v. Patterson 154 by conclusory supported only appeal will be waived when it is (1992), statements, authority. (People Carpenter v. with no citation 904-05.) not a appellate depository Ill. court is App. 3d dump argument research. may in which defendant burden 663.) Rather, are Ill. we (People Payton argument, along with entitled to well-reasoned (134 341(e)(7); argument. People Ethridge R. Ill. 2d 470.) comply light of failure defendant’s I, II, IV, VI, rule, and XI waived. we consider issues regard III. She better with to issue Defendant fares little opportunity present improperly denied an claims she was training disciplinary record. de While regarding Kotrba’s Officer clear, trial court denied appears it it fendant does not make discovery information. Her compel motion before allegedly odd behavior that Kotrba’s argument seems
87 stop may discipline and in reflected a serious the course have he, incident, problem, disciplinary may wishing to avoid another and testify falsely regarding stop. have the been motivated (1981), v. 95 3d in People Phillips App. Defendant cites however, argument. present did the Phillips, of her not problem Phillips in the issues in that exists this case. One of involved, of a in which shooting, whether the officer’s account he was suspensions improperly prior of the officer’s true. Evidence testify falsely excluded it was to the officer’s motive to since relevant contrast, despite suspension. in order avoid still another In it, on not defendant’s effort to dwell this case the issue is whether Kotrba which he told truth about manner conducted committed stop of is whether the of defendant. issue defendant battery explain fenses of arrest. Defendant does not veracity during how the procedures stop Kotrba’s about followed question guilt showing is relevant to the or innocence. Absent relevance, an compelling discovery sought order of the information nothing fishing would have amounted to than a more motion, expedition. deciding discovery it is the trial court’s task materiality sought. determine relevance and of the materials 292.) (People (1992), v. Gomez 3d The trial court has ruling broad discretion in materiality on issues of relevance and its determination will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion. 292.) (Gomez, Ill. App. 236 We find no such the trial abuse court’s discovery denial defendant’s motion. reasoning applies also applies issue III to issue X. De-
fendant claims the court erred quashed subpoena when it a variety department records records from the auto garage which towed initially defendant’s car. We note that the State responds this matter not a subpoena, does involve but motion compel However, discovery discussed above. whether we consider to be a a subpoena discovery this case of or a motion does way, prevail. matter. Either defendant cannot just discussed, discovery
As should is de whether be allowed pendent upon materiality relevance the information to be Similarly, discovered. pretrial subpoena requires, the issuance of a among things, sought evidentiary other the documents (See People (1988), 210, 225, relevant. Shukovsky citing v. 128 Ill. 2d (1974), 683, 699-700, United States Nixon 418 41 L. Ed. 2d U.S. 1039, 1059, 3090, 3103; S. Ct. Carey 94 ex rel. Fisher v. 269.) again, Ill. 2d Once fails to how demonstrate
any sought the documents she was relevant to the issues before jury. information, right She seems to claim she had a to the issues, subpoenas absent relevance to the allowance of would (See fishing expedition. another Shukovsky, have amounted to mere 225.) Ill. 2d at The trial court did abuse its discretion matter.
In issue V defendant contends that the evidence raised the possibility that, arrest, justified even if she resisted conduct ground acting reasonably on the that she was to defend herself. She correctly points jury that a is out entitled instructions present supports case which her theories of the when the evidence theories, given theory very slight upon even will giving Lyda warrant of an instruction. (People 544.) improperly She concludes that the trial following instruction: refused *6 person justified "A is in the use of force when and to the extent necessary reasonably he that that believes such conduct is to [(himself)***]against the imminent use of defend unlawful force.” (3d (Illinois Instructions, Criminal, Jury No. Pattern 24—25.06 ed. 1992)(hereinafter 3d).) IPI Criminal properly responds
The State the self-defense instruction was agree. to it. rejected support since there was evidence We Illinois, may by force resist not use to known (Ill. officer, 1991, peace if the arrest is unlawful. Rev. Stat. ch. even (West (now 1992)); People Bailey par. 7—7 ILCS 5/7 —7 398.) exception An is made to this rule an for situations in which uses excessive force. Use officer (Ill. ch. right Rev. Stat. force invokes the self-defense. (now (West 1992)); par. Bailey, 7—1 720 ILCS 5/7—1 398.) Hence, required instruction on self-defense is in police not aware of the only arrest case when the defendant is part there is of excessive force on the identity officer’s or evidence argument, arresting According to defendant’s evi officer. police did know was a officer and dence showed that she Ward pushed away Kotrba’s hand when she scratched his hand and Office she as only trying to defend herself from what characterizes she was his officer and firend police the "bizarre and offensive conduct Specifically, testimony she her that Chief in a trench coat.” cites [sic] clothes, Ward, himself as a plain never identified who was dressed arrest, being placed peace officer told her she was under wrist, pull though her as her grabbed into reached her car car, again, is not clear Once it saying "tired this.” from that, they brief, argue because appears but she from defendant’s on, her grabbed and then going her allegedly not tell what would man and the other wrist, uniformed officer she fearful her, necessary herself. The rec- might harm and she felt it to defend support argument. ord does say
According testimony, she heard Kotrba to defendant’s own three later into radio that he had a Two or minutes situation. converged lights flashing, the area their patrol several cars directly. talking Ward, approached her she saw Kotrba Ward police also a officer and does not This evidence reflects Ward was implication reasonably that she feared Ward might acting with Kotrba to unlawful stranger concert use against significantly, police force there no evidence the her. More is used force. Defendant that all Ward was reach excessive testified did through grab get the car door and her the wrist order to her repeatedly out of the car. acted after had Ward failed and, Ward, respond questions according after she had then, his hand. Even took scratched when defendant hold Ward’s told let go, wrist and him to did so. Ward Finally, the evidence does not demonstrate that defendant was in police possible fear of the or the use of excessive force. Ward When grabbed wrist, responded immediately grabbing his wrist go, with her other When go hand. told to let she demanded be let Although expressed herself. surprised, that she was confused, and did happening during not understand what was incident, she never Sergeant testified that she was afraid. Kincaid also related that defendant seemed confused and nervous. While impression angry, Kincaid recounted her that defendant seemed officer never mentioned that appeared This fearful. evi person acting dence does not reflect out of fear of the officers. all, All in require not sufficient to a self-defense *7 instruction, and refusing the trial court not err in did one. We agree defendant, with the that by State the cases cited Veatch and People Lyda truly by police, involved brutal excessive conduct which warranted an instruction on defense of others. The evidence here of excessive force does being comparable. not even come close to
There is no merit defendant’s issue She claims she VII. fair denied a trial hostility due the trial court’s bias towards However, her. report proceedings we have of examined the trial find that it does not this contention. Defendant’s sweeping statement speaks help that "the record for itself’ is little of in specifically, our review. More what defendant calls "severe dialog admonishment” occurred as a of a in result which defense judge talking counsel and the trial over were the other. court’s comments amounted to little more than direction to counsel talking by not to talk when the court is a recitation the court very that, talking practical the fact when counsel and the court are time, reporter will at the same the court take down the court’s remarks. We that such remarks of the sort made here are doubt brief admonishment,” fairly by as a as de- characterized "severe asserted event, certainly In any they any fendant. do not reflect court bias Moreover, against were they presence defendant. made outside the jury jury’s not have affected the verdict. could by focuses a threat Defendant also the court cite counsel contempt. just completed had an extended The court both counsel concerning question defense counsel’s desire to Chief Ward discussion that, among subjects, held topics. on a number of The court other department policies regarding ask counsel could not about in, very stops. brought question back and the first traffic policies. chief such At the bench the counsel asked the concerned doing, reminding him he had asked what he was that counsel question. ask said was not been told could not Counsel that following dialog understanding, and the ensued: just fifteen you "THE What do think I said the last COURT: minutes. Well, you certainly points.
MR. covered lot of ROBINSON: confusing you? THE Am I COURT: too MR. ROBINSON:No. you? you
THE Do want me write them down for COURT: I MR. don’t think so. ROBINSON: Counsel, rulings you if
THE don’t abide COURT: Court, last going you contempt of Court. This is the I’m to hold you. you me?” warning giving I’m Do understand reflects, worst, record a deliberate defiance In our view this least, or, counsel, very at the rulings of the court defense Under the circum- disregard for the of the court. callous way do we stances, justified warning counsel. court was continuing bias any the court’s comments as reflection perceive allegation hostility defendant. Defendant makes the toward against prosecutor any comparable made threat the court never we conduct, where provides no citation to record for similar Finally, similar example of similar conduct. might find an bench, admonishment, at the contempt threat occurred basis for hearing jury. Accordingly, there is no outside in an court resulted of the trial claim that conduct trial. unfair erred posits the trial court eighth issue
In the charges her that had been against allowing State to refile
91 nol-prossed previously and to add two new counts. Defendant capricious charges, contends that the which she characterizes as or vexatious, strongly implied were made in a context that retaliation against filing police for complaints misconduct with the However, department and the sheriffs office. after defendant recites matter, that she court adds that the advised trial about this *** dropped court was interested and "the counsel matter Thus, appears simply pursue as a futile it did not exercise.” out, where, an points this issue in trial court State eviden as the hearing tiary could been have held and record established. The party making responsible an preserving of error is assertion (People error presenting a sufficient record for review. v. Turner 481-82.) (1993), 474, Moreover, App. general Ill. 249 3d as a rule arguments appeal raised for first time on are deemed waived. 825.) (1993), 818, (People Wych App. Accordingly, v. Ill. 248 3d we consider issue waived. IX, remaining, urges
In the issue issue denying trial quash suppress court erred her motion arrest The undisputed evidence. motion was based on the fact that arrest, and the conduct charges which resulted in this case against defendant, place Village took outside the of Gurnee. Defen correctly dant points exactly out of this are not facts case (1990), 965, same as those People App. Carraher 199 Ill. 3d (1989), 600, People App. v. DeBlieck 3d evidently cases upon hand, relied the trial court. On the other cites whatsoever for the contention should arrest have fact, been quashed. In defendant seems attack not so much the itself, battery charges, arrest but the since those arose entirely and, Village therefore, outside the of Gurnee outside Kotr jurisdiction. ba’s argument. We find no merit in this finding of the quash trial court relative to motion to manifestly not be disturbed on will review unless it is 373.) (People (1992), erroneous. v. Villarreal Ill. 2d 152 trial recently Village here made no such error. We held in Prairie (1994), 682, that, App. Carraher, Grove v. Ill. po Sutton 260 3d under jurisdictions lice officers could arrest motorists outside officers’ (See Carraher, jurisdictions. offenses committed inside those 970-71; App. Ill. also 3d see v. Pollard 514.) 591; People Thompson Carraher 5(c) we had on section Code relied of Criminal Procedure 107— permits police "anywhere which an arrest within make (Ill. jurisdiction par. of this State.” Stat. ch. 107— Rev. 5(c) (now 5(c) (West 1992)).) 725 ILCS Defendant nowhere 5/107 — *9 contests there plate that was no license on the front her car or suspended driving that her license was time at the she was within Hence, by Gurnee and was observed Officer Kotrba. she does not Rather, really challenge her arrest based on the traffic her violations. argument seems to be that evidence of arrest and criminal battery suppressed have since offenses not should been those were jurisdiction police department. committed within the of the Gurnee Although present any argument or defendant does not position, briefly will issue. we address the
All of defendant’s offenses as Kotrba and were occurred Ward valid, extrajurisdictional, make a attempting to albeit arrest. Defen battery very dant resisted committed in the course of arrest. though improper totally separate It is as defendant’s conduct was On from and unrelated the situation in which found herself. contrary, integrally up were with arrest the offenses bound the circumstances, process. Under these there was no reasonable challenged justification suppress for the trial court evidence. say occurring in To of a defendant’s offenses—offenses evidence valid, extrajurisdictional arrest —is midst of defendant’s merely inadmissible because the conduct occurred outside result, arresting jurisdiction, certainly is officer’s an absurd otherwise, If could exe legislature. one intended it were jurisdiction, unable to thwart cute valid arrests outside their but be it occurring during precisely the arrest because unlawful conduct jurisdiction. occurred their outside response that with is the
Consonant our conclusion State’s with granting relief she seeks would be inconsistent may resist arrest even that a not use force to principle (See is, fact, it unlawful. if she to be invalid and believes (now 7, 31—1 720 ILCS pars. Rev. Ill. Stat. ch. 5/7— 7— 374-75.) (West 1992)); In Villarreal, 2d at the scenario 31—1 arrest, defendant, forcibly valid resist urged an offender could otherwise, because the resistance occurred impunity, solely with conflicts arresting result jurisdiction of the officer. Such outside the sum, we unacceptable. and is intent the statute clear clearly related are so opine that when a defendant’s offenses here, offenses of those evidence arrest as those which occurred valid outside been committed admissible, though they may have is even arresting jurisdiction officer. above, affirm judgment For all reasons set forth we County Lake circuit court.
Affirmed. J.,
DOYLE, concurs. QUETSCH, dissenting:
JUSTICE as to V respectfully majority I dissent from the decision issue (the instruction failure the trial defendant’s tendered force). Jury justified Illinois Pattern use of (3d 1992). Instructions, ed. Criminal No. 24—25.06 properly acknowledges the defendant is correct majority asserting "a which is entitled instructions present supports her theories of the case when the evidence such the ories, theory very slight given will warrant upon even added.) (267 giving (Emphasis of an instruction.” 88; People Lyda (1989), 540, 544; Veatch *10 28-30.) 23, Thus, App. 145 Ill. any 3d evidence that Ms. Williams believed that necessary her conduct was to defend herself against the requires giving imminent use of unlawful force of the dispute instruction in here.
Lyda also held that a trial is court not allowed to decide credibility weigh support evidence which claim would a of self- defense, may only determine whether there is any evidence. (190 544-45.) Ill. 3d at App. Curiously, contrary and to clear stan Lyda, reviews, dards of majority weighs, and determines credibility of the evidence and concludes that "there nowas evidence support” giving Thus, only of the instruction. not did the trial province cause, court invade of the jury this but also our reviewing majority compounds error, resolving does the same and questions regarding belief, of fact knowledge, the defendant’s and the belief, reasonableness of her and a usurping properly task reserved jury for a Lyda, of citizens. 3d App. 540.
I disagree that there to support was the instruction. It is not disputed clothing was in civilian he Ward when approached grabbed car defendant’s the wrist. Defen- identify peace dant said that Ward did himself as a officer or ex- badge, you hibit his but merely "baby girl, said can’t do this.” She confused, according bystander. was an was officer How lay interloper? to know that not a policeman Ward was Knowl- edge by resisting the defendant that she was is peace officer required proof charge of element the State’s in the 94
(Ill. (now (West 38, par. Rev. 31—1 ILCS Stat. ch. 720 5/31—1 1992))); necessity in a and reasonable belief of is element (Ill. par. Stat. ch. 7—1 defendant’s affirmative defense Rev. (now (West 1992))). 720 ILCS 5/7—1 support theories of both not
There was evidence defendant’s knowing peace belief in ne of Ward’s status as officer and her credibility cessity self-protection. weight The of that evi jury, judge dence for a not for the trial or this court. App. 145 3d
Veatch Ill. 28-30. prove argue If defendant’s knowl the State allowed edge (by status direct but contradicted evidence that Ward’s himself badge, circumstantially identified and showed events) surrounding given, have and to its instructions should justifiable on her use of self- defendant’s instruction defense given? belief have protecting force based on reasonable also been Veatch, 540; App. "yes.” 3d Ill. Lyda, answer is Ill. 23. (and reviewing majority) improperly this trial court’s jury, by, its weighed province evidence and invaded the of the own, knowledge and resolving questions regarding of fact defendant’s majority, by its deci belief and the reasonableness that belief. The sion, jury’s judge’s usurping the trial role. On endorses issue, duty function and determine the trial court’s jus theory any support evidence to whether there so, and, disputed self-protection if tifiable use of guide Lyda, instruction to its deliberations. 540; Veatch, App. 3d 23. growing eyes its to the current and
Should this court close stopping impersonating officers incidence of criminals illicit I purposes? think not. roadways drivers on our for various clearly as was some evidence Inasmuch there *11 (as majority’s own statement giving of the instruction shown its facts), its and misused the trial exceeded and the be reversed The defendant’s convictions should discretion. and fair trial. cause remanded a new