People v. Kane

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 3rd District Appellate » 2010 » People v. Kane

People v. Kane

State: Illinois

Court: 3rd District Appellate

Docket No: 3-08-1008 Rel

Case Date: 01/11/2010

Preview:No. 3--08--1008 Filed January 11, 2010 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2010 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KATHLEEN KANE, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will County, Illinois No. 08--CM--991

Honorable James E. Egan, Judge, Presiding.

JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the opinion of the court:

The State charged defendant, Kathleen Kane, with violating section 15 of the Smoke Free Illinois Act (the Smoke Free Act) (410 ILCS 82/15 (West 2008)). Defendant filed a variety of

motions attacking the manner in which she was prosecuted, the charging instrument, as well as the constitutionality of the Smoke Free Act. motions. The circuit court of Will County denied those

Defendant was convicted following a jury trial.

Defendant appeals, claiming that the Smoke Free Act is not enforceable through criminal proceedings, that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury regarding the meaning of

the term "bar," and that the Smoke Free Act is unconstitutional. BACKGROUND Police detective Kevin O'Boyle and Cynthia Jackson from the Will County health department observed defendant smoking in Woody's tavern in Will County, Illinois. Detective O'Boyle

issued defendant a ticket, using the Illinois citation and complaint form, accusing her of violating section 15 of the Smoke Free Act. 410 ILCS 82/15 (West 2008). Defendant filed various

unsuccessful motions to dismiss the case against her, attacking the charging instrument, the constitutionality of the Smoke Free Act, the alleged search of Woody's Tavern, and her prosecution through the criminal courts. defendant was found guilty. The case proceeded to jury trial; The circuit court sentenced

defendant to six months' court supervision and ordered her to pay a fine in the amount of $231. Defendant filed a posttrial motion, arguing that the Smoke Free Act is unconstitutional, and in the alternative, if the Smoke Free Act is constitutional, then it may only be enforced through administrative proceedings and not in criminal cases initiated in the Illinois courts. Defendant's posttrial motions

also claimed that the State failed to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in instructing the jury. Defendant's posttrial motion was denied

and this appeal followed. 2

ANALYSIS Defendant argues on appeal that the State cannot prosecute violations of the Smoke Free Act through the use of criminal proceedings in the circuit courts. Specifically, defendant

argues that the fines discussed in the Smoke Free Act are neither criminal nor penal, and that it was the legislature's intent to enforce the fines discussed in the Smoke Free Act through administrative proceedings. Defendant asks us to declare that

the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear this matter and, therefore, reverse her conviction and dismiss this case. The State responds by claiming the Smoke Free Act does not contain any language specifically depriving the circuit court of jurisdiction and, therefore, we must find the circuit courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Department of Public Health to issue fines in violation of the Smoke Free Act. To support its

position, the State cites People v. NL Industries, 152 Ill. 2d 82, 604 N.E.2d 349 (1992), and Employers Mutual Cos. v. Skilling, 163 Ill. 2d 284, 644 N.E.2d 1163 (1994). It is well settled that the courts of Illinois have original jurisdiction over all justiciable matters. art. VI,

Download People v. Kane.pdf