People v. Longoria

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 2nd District Appellate » 2007 » People v. Longoria

People v. Longoria

State: Illinois

Court: 2nd District Appellate

Docket No: 2-06-0353 Rel

Case Date: 07/26/2007

Preview:No. 2--06--0353 Filed: 7-26-07 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Ogle County. ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) Nos. 04--DT--1 ) 04--TR--15 ) 04--TR--16 ) 04--TR--17 ) JOHN LONGORIA, ) Honorable ) Kathleen O. Kauffmann, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court: The State appeals the trial court's order dismissing with prejudice charges against defendant, John Longoria, after the trial court declared a mistrial and found that the State was responsible for it. The State contends that there is no indication that the prosecutor intended to provoke defendant into moving for a mistrial and, accordingly, it may retry defendant. We reverse and remand. Defendant was charged by complaint with leaving the scene of an accident (625 ILCS 5/11-401(a) (West 2004)), driving with a revoked license (625 ILCS 5/6--303 (West 2004)), operating an uninsured motor vehicle (625 ILCS 5/3--707 (West 2004)), and driving under the influence of alcohol (625 ILCS 5/11--501(a)(2) (West 2004)), following an accident on January 4, 2004. Defendant's jury trial did not begin until March 6, 2006. On the day of trial, defendant moved in limine to bar, inter

No. 2--06--0353

alia, evidence of other crimes that defendant committed. The trial court denied the prosecutor's request for a short continuance to review the motion, which had not previously been served on him. The court granted the motion as it related to evidence of defendant's other crimes. At trial, Christopher Fant testified that on January 4, 2004, he was following a minivan south on Route 251. It had been snowing, and the road was slippery. Fant saw a northbound red car, later identified as a Mercedes, cross the centerline and strike the minivan head on. The red car "bounced back into the ditch," backed out of it, and took off. Fant pulled up alongside the minivan to see if its occupants were alright. The driver said that everyone was alright, but asked Fant to follow the red car. Fant followed the red car for about 12 miles until it stopped at the Rolling Meadows Trailer Park in Davis Junction. Fant pulled up beside the red car. A man, whom Fant identified as defendant, "poured" himself out of the driver's side door of the red car. No one else was in the car. Fant asked defendant why he "took off after he just hit a van full of people." Defendant denied having done so. However, Fant disputed this based on the damage to the red car. Defendant refused to give his name. Fant testified that defendant's speech was slurred, he smelled of alcohol, and he kept stumbling. Defendant had to hold onto the car to support himself. When Fant told defendant that he had the police on the phone, defendant tried to move toward a trailer. Fant and his stepson stepped in front of defendant to prevent him from entering the trailer. When the police arrived, Fant and his stepson were still standing between defendant and the steps to the trailer. Fant and his stepson then backed away to "let the police handle things." After the police arrived, defendant claimed for the first time that he was sick and needed to see a doctor.

-2-

No. 2--06--0353

Fant testified that the collision occurred one mile from Rochelle, which has a hospital. However, Davis Junction, 12 miles from the scene, has no hospital. Defendant called, out of order, Dr. Anthony Niezyniecki, an emergency room physician at SwedishAmerican Hospital who treated defendant on January 4, 2004. Niezyniecki testified that his notes made no reference to defendant having consumed alcohol that day. He stated that he treated defendant for peripheral neuropathy. The recommended treatment is a morphine injection. While the use of morphine for a person with alcohol in his system is not contraindicated, it would have to be monitored carefully because alcohol tends to enhance the effects of the morphine. Niezyniecki testified that defendant initially gave his brother's name when he arrived at the emergency room. The prosecutor asked Niezyniecki if defendant told him why he gave his brother's name rather than his own. Defense counsel objected and the trial court sustained the objection. Outside the jury's presence, defense counsel argued that the question violated the court's in limine order, and he moved for a mistrial. The court denied the motion, ruling that the evidence sought was transactional and, accordingly, did not violate the in limine order. The prosecution then resumed its case. After calling several witnesses whose testimony is not relevant here, the State called defendant's brother, Richard Longoria. He testified that, shortly before January 4, 2004, he acquired the red Mercedes that defendant was driving. Richard Longoria left the car at his brother's house while he was waiting for insurance and license plates for it. Richard Longoria testified that his brother--defendant--did not have permission to borrow the Mercedes. Moreover, he had never given defendant permission to borrow that car. At that point, defense counsel objected to that series of questions. The trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard those questions and answers.

-3-

No. 2--06--0353

Outside the jury's presence, defense counsel again moved for a mistrial, arguing that the questions violated the court's in limine order barring reference to other crimes. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the questions were "extremely prejudicial" to defendant as they raised "the specter, at least" of defendant having committed another crime. The court told the prosecutor that it "hate[d] to attribute your questions to bad faith," but in light of the "previous discussion" (presumably regarding Niezyniecki's testimony), it could not understand why he had asked those questions. In a written order issued the following day, the court wrote that, because the mistrial was "occasioned by actions of the State," it was dismissing the charges with prejudice. The State timely appeals. The State primarily contends that the trial court erred by dismissing the charges with prejudice. The State argues that, because defendant requested the mistrial, double jeopardy principles do not bar a retrial unless the prosecutor's conduct was intended to goad defendant into moving for a mistrial. The State maintains that the record shows that the prosecution's case was going well and there is no reason the prosecutor would have wanted a mistrial. The State also appears to contend that the trial court erred by declaring a mistrial at all and by denying the prosecutor's motion for a continuance to respond to defendant's motion in limine. We agree with the State's principal contention. Our resolution of that issue renders the State's remaining contentions moot. The double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Illinois Constitutions (U.S. Const., amend. V; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I,

Download People v. Longoria.pdf