People v. Carron
State: Illinois
Court: 5th District Appellate
Docket No: 5-97-1067
Case Date: 08/24/1998
August 24, 1998
NO. 5-97-1067
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
_________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) St. Clair County.
)
v. ) No. 95-CF-937
)
WILLIAM CARRON, ) Honorable
) James W. Campanella,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.
_________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE HOPKINS delivered the opinion of the court:
The defendant, William Carron, was charged by indictment with
two counts of aggravated reckless homicide and two counts of
reckless homicide. The jury also was instructed on the lesser-
included offense of driving while under the influence of alcohol
(DUI), a misdemeanor (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(1) (West 1994)). The
jury found defendant not guilty of the felony offenses and guilty
of the DUI. The court sentenced defendant to serve a periodic term
of imprisonment of 364 days in the county jail (730 ILCS 5/5-7-1(a)
(West 1996)), which allowed defendant's release during the day to
enable him to continue his employment, and to pay a $1,000 fine.
The court denied defendant the good-behavior allowance as provided
in the County Jail Good Behavior Allowance Act (730 ILCS 130/1 et
seq. (West 1996)), because the trial court specifically found "that
physical harm upon another person was committed during the course
of the DUI." See 730 ILCS 130/3 (West 1996). On appeal, defendant
contends as follows: (1) the trial court erred in admitting
victim-impact statements at the sentencing hearing, (2) the trial
court erred in failing to specify on the record the particular
evidence, information, factors in mitigation and aggravation, or
other reasons that led to the sentencing determination, (3) the
sentence was excessive, and (4) the trial court abused its
discretion by imposing a sentence which did not provide for an
allowance for good behavior.
Although defendant's appeal addresses only sentencing issues,
a brief statement of the facts is necessary to understand this
case. On May 24, 1995, at approximately 7:30 p.m., a two-vehicle
collision occurred on Illinois Highway 158 near Millstadt,
Illinois. Kara Morton, the driver of a Chevrolet automobile, and
her two-year-old daughter, Lauren, died in the accident. Defendant
was the driver of the other vehicle. Evidence was presented that
defendant's blood-alcohol level was .247 at the time of the
accident. Testimony from defendant's treating physician and a
nurse in the emergency room of the hospital, as well as the
testimony of the radiology technician who administered defendant's
CAT scans the night of the accident, established that defendant
emitted a strong odor of alcohol that night. Conversely, other
evidence was presented that there was no indication of defendant's
intoxication. Conflicting evidence was presented concerning the
location of the accident. One officer testified that the accident
occurred in the center of the road, while another officer testified
that the collision occurred in defendant's lane of traffic.
Lastly, evidence was presented that Kara may have taken evasive
action immediately prior to the collision.
Defendant first contends that the court erred in admitting
victim-impact statements at sentencing because the jury determined,
through defendant's acquittal on the felony charges, that defendant
was not the proximate cause of the accident, because the victims
who made statements were not "crime victims" as defined in the
statute, and because this was not a "violent crime" as defined in
the statute. See 725 ILCS 120/3(a),(c) (West 1996). We disagree
with defendant's reading of the statute.
Section 3(a) of the Bill of Rights for Victims and Witnesses
of Violent Crime Act defines a "victim" in pertinent part as
follows:
"(3) *** the spouse, parent, child[,] or sibling of a person
killed as a result of a violent crime perpetrated against the
person killed ***." 725 ILCS 120/3(a) (West 1996).
Additionally, section 3(c) of the Bill of Rights for Victims and
Witnesses of Violent Crime Act defines a "violent crime" in
pertinent part as follows:
"`Violent Crime' means *** any violation of *** Section
11-501 of the Illinois Vehicle Code, or a similar provision of
a local ordinance, if the violation resulted in personal
injury or death ***." 725 ILCS 120/3(c) (West 1996).
When construing the meaning of a statute, a court must
ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. People
v. Robinson, 172 Ill. 2d 452 (1996). One of the most reliable
indicators of the legislature's intent is the language of the
statute itself, and the statute's language must be given its plain
and ordinary meaning. Robinson, 172 Ill. 2d at 457. If the
language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, no further
construction aids are needed to apply the statute. Robinson, 172
Ill. 2d at 457.
Defendant would have this court find that the jury's acquittal
on the manslaughter/reckless homicide charges leads to the
irrefutable conclusion that Kara's death was in no way the result
of defendant's violation of section 11-501(a) of the Illinois
Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. (West 1994)). Therefore,
defendant argues, his conviction for a misdemeanor DUI does not
qualify as a violent crime under the clear and unambiguous language
of the statute. Defendant's position is an untenable effort to
require the trial court, and this court, to ignore the forest of
logic by exclusively concentrating on the trees of the different
verdicts. The evidence of DUI as presented herein, and accepted by
the jury in its conviction for DUI, was that the defendant suffered
the impairment to his driving skills of nearly 2
Illinois Law
Illinois State Laws
Illinois Tax
Illinois Court
Illinois Labor Laws
> Minimum Wage in Illinois
Illinois Agencies