People v. Healy
Annotate this Case
Fourth Division
December 4, 1997
No. 1-96-3866
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,) APPEAL FROM THE
) CIRCUIT COURT OF
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) COOK COUNTY.
)
v. )
)
KEVIN HEALY, ) HONORABLE
) LORETTA HALL-MORGAN,
Defendant-Appellant. ) JUDGE PRESIDING.
JUSTICE WOLFSON delivered the opinion of the court:
On November 22, 1992, Kevin Healy was arrested by the
Chicago police department and charged with the murder of Laura
Sage. Between March 16, 1993, and September 17, 1993, a period
of 185 days, while Healy was incarcerated awaiting trial, the
prosecution requested five continuances in an attempt to complete
its crime laboratory work. During this time, neither Healy nor
his attorneys caused, contributed to, or agreed to these
continuances.
Because this delay violated the Illinois Speedy Trial Act,
we reverse Healy's conviction and order his discharge.
FACTS
The facts surrounding Sage's murder and Healy's arrest come
from the trial testimony of Healy; Assistant State's Attorney
Stan Gonsalves, who published Healy's confession to the jury; and
Detective Bernard Ryan, who investigated Sage's murder.
In August 1992, Healy picked-up a hitchhiker, Sage, in his
van while driving through Cicero. After talking with Healy for
several minutes, Sage offered to have sex with Healy for money.
Healy agreed, had sex with Sage, and paid her $40.
On November 2, 1992, while his wife was staying at the Mayo
Clinic in Minnesota, Healy sought Sage's company by driving
through Cicero. When he found Sage, Healy accompanied her to a
motel where he paid her again for sex. At the motel, Healy met
Sage's friend, Carnival Bob. Over the next five days, Healy
sought Sage's company in Cicero on several occasions. Healy gave
Sage money for sex, and Sage would use this money for drugs.
Healy saw Sage injecting drugs on several occasions. During this
time, Sage began staying at Healy's house.
On November 7, 1992, while riding in Healy's van, Sage
demanded more money for drugs. When Healy refused, Sage
threatened to tell Healy's wife and employer about his
solicitation of a prostitute, and threatened to have Carnival Bob
burglarize Healy's house. Sage lied down in the back of Healy's
van to rest. Healy followed Sage, kneeled on top of her, and
grabbed her shirt. Healy testified: "I told her to get out of my
truck, to get out of my life." According to Healy, Sage
responded: "She said I was a dead man because she had aids
[sic]." Healy then killed Sage by beating her with a flashlight,
strangling her with a plastic tie-strap, and stabbing her.
On November 13, 1992, Sage's body was found in the Chicago
River. The Chicago police department began its investigation.
After learning Sage's identity, the police met with several of
her friends. The police learned Sage was last seen with a man
named Kevin in a blue van containing Chicago fire department
paraphernalia. On the morning of November 22, 1992, three
detectives went to Healy's house.
At Healy's house, the police observed a blue van in the
driveway. Healy answered the door and met the police briefly.
When Healy admitted his acquaintance with Sage, the police told
Healy they would like to interview him at Area 1 Police
Headquarters "some time in the future." Healy chose to speak
with the police immediately. After nearly six hours of police
interrogation, a failed polygraph test, and eventually an
inculpatory statement, Healy was arrested.
On December 16, 1992, the prosecution returned an indictment
against Healy, and the court set an arraignment for December 29,
1992. Healy agreed to extend this date to January 4, 1993. On
that date, Healy filed a motion to substitute judges and asked
for a bond hearing, which was set for January 20.
On January 20, 1993, Healy filed his discovery motion. The
court offered the prosecution 45 days to complete discovery.
Healy's attorney suggested the parties return on March 16, 1993,
once the prosecution had answered discovery.
On March 16, 1993, the prosecution provided discovery
documents and requested blood, saliva, and hair samples from
Healy. Healy's attorney objected for the record and asked to
file a written response, but the court granted the prosecution's
request. The prosecution asked for six weeks to finish analyzing
these samples. Defense counsel responded, "I have no problem
with any date in May, Judge." Then, the court spoke with defense
counsel:
"THE COURT: Is it a by-agreement date or are you
saying you want time to file your motions, too; file
what motions would be due on said date?
I am trying to set a date, counsel, by which they
can get the work-up done and that information can be
gotten [sic] to you so that their Discovery to you is
complete and it would give you time to review your
Discovery to prepare your answer and file any pretrial
motion that will be heard. Pick a date that would
allow that?
MR. COULES [Defense Attorney]: Any date in May we
will be here."
The court ordered the parties to return on May 6, 1993. No trial
date was set.
On May 6, 1993, the prosecution reported the samples had not
been analyzed and requested another month to complete its tests.
The court said:
"THE COURT: All right. What date do we want?
MR. SEXTON [Assistant State's Attorney]: A month
date.
THE COURT: Today is what? The 6th? Why don't you
pick a date the week of June 7.
MR COULES: Any day will be fine, Judge.
THE COURT: Let's make it the 9th. June 9, status.
MR. COULES: Sure, Judge."
On June 9, 1993, the prosecution again reported the samples
had not been analyzed and requested another month. The court
said:
"THE COURT: Do you have a time frame?
MS. DONOHOE [Assistant State's Attorney]: Judge,
I'm hoping to have it within a month.
THE COURT: Okay counsel, do you want to look at
your calendar. The problem is actually a month from
now I will not be here. I will be on vacation. So
maybe the prudent thing is to set it when I come back.
I will be back on the 19th of July.
MR. BAIRD [Defense Attorney]: I don't have any
problem with the 19th of July.
THE COURT: Okay. And maybe we'll have something
accomplished by then.
MR. BAIRD: Okay. Perhaps if the state does have
the data they can mail it to me prior.
MS. DONOHOE: We certainly will, Judge. We have
mailed some discovery to counsel between the last date
and this date.
THE COURT: Okay. 7-19-93, without, for lab tests
and then if we can get that done maybe on that date he
can look forward to your answer. And any motions.
MR. BAIRD: Very good, Judge."
On July 19, 1993, the prosecution again reported the samples
had not been analyzed and requested yet another month. The court
spoke with counsel:
"THE COURT: Okay, what I'd like to do perhaps is
give this a date where something might be accomplished.
Do you have any requests from the lab understanding
their difficulty and layoffs and so forth, what would
be a reasonable time?
MS. DONOHOE: I'm going to suggest late August. I
will make every effort--I will explain to them that the
Court won't tolerate it.
THE COURT: Right. Counsel, if you will look at a
date convenient to you. I'll be gone late August, a
date towards the end of August.
MR. COULES: Whatever date is convenient to you.
MS. DONOHOE: August 26th."
The court ordered the parties to return on August 26. The case
was set for "status," not trial.
On August 26, 1993, the prosecution had not completed its
analysis of the samples and asked the court for another
extension. The court said to defense counsel:
"THE COURT: What date would be convenient for you,
Counsel? I don't believe it takes five months to
analyze a blood sample.
MR. BAIRD: I would suggest around September 16th
or 17th."
The court ordered the parties to return on September 17.
As of September 17, the critical course of continuances was:
Continuance Duration
March 16-May 6 51 days
May 6-June 9 34 days
June 9-July 19 40 days
July 19-August 26 38 days
August 26-September 17 22 days
Total: March 16-September 17 185 days
On September 17, 1993, the prosecution produced its lab
reports. The court gave Healy until October 14, 1993, to file
any pretrial motions. Among other motions, Healy filed a motion
for discharge under the Speedy Trial Act. On January 18, 1994,
the court denied this motion.
The court acknowledged, "[defense] counsel is absolutely
right and the transcripts have revealed very often the words by
agreement are not said very often." The court mentioned,
however, its "strong feeling that there had never been, up to the
point counsel had filed his motion, any indication anything was
happening except by agreement." The court repeated, "I never had
any indication or thoughts those dates were not by agreement."
The court noted, "[D]uring that period had there been a
concern about the term[,] counsel or the defendant could have
opened his mouth and said so." Further, the court's common law
record (half-sheets) indicates that the continuances at issue
were "B/A" (by agreement).
The court also denied Healy's motions to quash his arrest
and suppress his confession. At trial, the court refused defense
jury instructions relating to second degree murder. On August 1,
1996, Healy was convicted of first degree murder.
On October 23, 1996, after discussing the evidence in
aggravation and mitigation, the court sentenced Healy to 30 years
imprisonment. This appeal followed.
DECISION
On appeal, Healy makes five arguments. First, he contends
he was tried in violation of the Speedy Trial Act. Second, he
contends he was detained without probable cause before his
arrest. Third, he contends his confession was involuntary and
unintentional as a result of his diagnosed mental disorder.
Fourth, he contends the trial court should have instructed the
jury on second degree murder. Fifth, he contends the trial court
ignored mitigating evidence in sentencing.
Because the Speedy Trial Act issue disposes of the entire
case, we need not reach the other issues presented by Healy.
The Illinois Speedy Trial Act provides an enforcement
mechanism for violations of the constitutional right to a speedy
trial. See Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, 8; People v. Morris, 3 Ill. 2d 437, 121 N.E.2d 810 (1954). The statute provides:
"(a) Every person in custody in this State for an
alleged offense shall be tried by the court having
jurisdiction within 120 days from the date he was taken
into custody unless delay is occasioned by the
defendant ***.
* * *
(d) Every person not tried in accordance with ***
this Section shall be discharged from custody ***."
725 ILCS 5/103-5 (West 1992).
A delay is "occasioned by" or attributable to the defendant
when an affirmative act by the defendant causes or contributes to
the delay. People v. Turner, 128 Ill. 2d 540, 539 N.E.2d 1196
(1989); People v. Smith, 251 Ill. App. 3d 839, 623 N.E.2d 857
(1993). An express agreement to a continuance on the record is
an affirmative act attributable to the defendant. People v.
Reimolds, 92 Ill. 2d 101, 440 N.E.2d 872 (1982).
However, mere silence or failure to object to a continuance
requested by the prosecution is not an affirmative act
attributable to the defendant. People v. Cichanski, 81 Ill. App.
3d 619, 401 N.E.2d 1315 (1980); People v. Burchfield, 62 Ill.
App. 3d 754, 379 N.E.2d 375 (1978). Additionally, mere
acquiescence to a date suggested by the court is not an
affirmative act attributable to the defendant. People v. Beyah,
67 Ill. 2d 423, 367 N.E.2d 1334 (1977). See People v. Wyatt, 24 Ill. 2d 151, 180 N.E.2d 478 (1962); People v. House, 10 Ill. 2d 556, 141 N.E.2d 12 (1957).
On appeal, we ordinarily will defer to the trial court's
determination that the defendant bears responsibility for the
delay absent an abuse of discretion. People v. Bowman, 138 Ill. 2d 131, 561 N.E.2d 633 (1990); People v. Harper, 279 Ill. App. 3d
801, 665 N.E.2d 474 (1996). This court is charged with examining
the transcript and the common law record to do complete justice
to both the prosecution and the defendant. People v. Andrade,
279 Ill. App. 3d 292, 664 N.E.2d 256 (1996); People v. Sojak, 273
Ill. App. 3d 579, 652 N.E.2d 1061 (1995). We have done that.
Healy contends the trial court abused its discretion in
attributing to him continuances requested by the prosecution.
In Turner, the defendant requested a number of continuances
after his arrest. Eventually, the trial court set a trial date
for the defendant and his co-defendants. During the trial of his
co-defendant, the defendant's attorney expressly agreed to a
later trial date suggested by the trial court.
On appeal, the court held the delay was attributable to the
defendant. Turner, 128 Ill. 2d at 553-54. The court found the
defendant was not prepared for the original trial date and the
trial judge continued the trial in order to accommodate the
defendant. Turner, 128 Ill. 2d at 553. The record showed "the
Defendant personally concurs" in setting a new trial date.
Turner, 128 Ill. 2d at 552. Accord Smith, 251 Ill. App. 3d at
843 (the defendant "not only agreed, but affirmatively requested"
a new trial date).
In Sojak, a dispute had arisen over certain medical reports
compiled by the defendant's doctors. The State's psychiatrists
needed the records in order to complete their evaluation of the
defendant. The matter was continued. The half-sheet read "by
agreement." Later, the defendant contended he did not agree to
the continuance and he could not be charged with it based on a
silent record. We held, based on the transcript of the
proceedings and the common law record:
"Thus, the record affirmatively establishes that
the defense contributed to the delay in obtaining these
records, a delay which in turn necessitated the
continuance now complained of here." Sojak, 273 Ill.
App. 3d at 583.
In Beyah, the defendant moved for reduction of his bail.
During the bail hearing, as the prosecution began to present
evidence of the defendant's prior criminal records, the trial
court interrupted:
"THE COURT: Motion for bond reduction denied. Go
ahead, pick a date.
MR. GOLDBERG [Assistant State's Attorney]: I have
got others [prior criminal records].
THE COURT: I haven't got time. Pick a date.
We'll give him a trial. I can't talk about bond. If
you're innocent, you walk out. If you're guilty, you
go to jail.
MR. WALTERS [Public Defender]: Set it down for
three weeks from today.
THE COURT: How about October 18?
THE DEFENDANT: Can I get one earlier than that?
THE COURT: I can't give you one earlier than that.
Motion Defendant, with subpoenas, October 18." Beyah,
67 Ill. 2d at 426.
The trial court scheduled the trial in three weeks and charged
the delay to the defendant.
On appeal, our supreme court held the trial court could not
order the defendant to pick a date and then attribute any delay
to the defendant. Beyah, 67 Ill. 2d at 428. Although the record
reflected the trial was set on the defendant's motion, the trial
court had initiated the delay. Beyah, 67 Ill. 2d at 426.
Charging the delay to the defendant would be "a mockery of
justice" because "the court and the court alone" proposed the
continuance even though the defendant took advantage of the
court's offer. Beyah, 67 Ill. 2d at 428 (quoting Wyatt, 24 Ill.
2d at 154).
Similarly, in Cichanski, the defendant requested a trial
date and the court suggested a continuance. The defendant's
attorney said the extension was satisfactory. On appeal, we
held the delay was attributable to the trial court. Cichanski,
81 Ill. App. 3d at 622. The defendant's silence while a date was
set by the court did not contribute to the delay by express
agreement. Cichanski, 81 Ill. App. 3d at 622. Accord:
Burchfield, 62 Ill. App. 3d at 756 (a motion for delay by the
prosecution cannot become a motion for continuance by the
defendant, "merely because the defendant failed to object" to the
delay); People v. Smith, 207 Ill. App. 3d 1072, 1077, 566 N.E.2d 797 (1991)(the statement by defense counsel, "That's fine", in
response to a trial date suggested by the prosecution, did not
constitute an express agreement to a continuance). See also
Wyatt, 24 Ill. 2d at 54 (delay suggested by the court to
unrepresented defendant not attributable to defendant); House, 10 Ill. 2d at 559-60 (delay suggested by the court to unrepresented
defendant not attributable to defendant).
In the instant case, Healy's speedy trial argument addresses
only the five continuances granted between March 13, 1993, and
September 17, 1993. Any delay occasioned by the defendant will
suspend for the time of the delay the period within which the
defendant must be tried. Smith, 207 Ill. App. 3d at 1074. But
the speedy trial clock does not start all over. It merely is
suspended.
Regarding these continuances, the defendant objected to the
underlying tests which caused the discovery delays, which in turn
led to the continuances requested by the prosecution. The
prosecution never answered ready during this period, and the case
was set for status date after status date, but never for trial.
The defendant did nothing to delay the testing process.
The prosecution contends defense counsel's statements to the
trial court regarding these continuances were equivocal.
On March 16, 1993, when the prosecution moved for blood,
saliva, and hair samples, the court asked defense counsel if a
continuance would be by agreement. Defense counsel did not agree
to a continuance, but instead responded, "Any date in May we will
be here." The court ordered the parties to return on May 6.
On May 6, 1993, the court asked defense counsel to pick a
date, and defense counsel answered, "Any day will be fine,
Judge." When the court chose a date, defense counsel said,
"Sure, Judge."
On June 9, 1993, the court asked defense counsel if he could
return on July 19. Defense counsel responded, "I don't have any
problem with the 19th of July." When the court ordered the
parties to return on July 19, defense counsel said, "Very good,
Judge."
On July 19, 1993, when the court asked defense counsel to
pick a date at the end of August, defense counsel said, "Whatever
date is convenient to you." The prosecution suggested August 26,
and the court agreed. August 26 marked the 163d day.
On August 26, 1993, the court asked defense counsel to pick
another date to return. Defense counsel said, "I would suggest
around September 16th or 17th." The court ordered the parties to
return on September 17.
Equivocal or not, defense counsels' statements should not
have been taken as agreement to delay. They clearly were not.
The period from March 16, 1993, to September 17, 1993, is
185 days. Unless continuances amounting to 65 days are
attributable to Healy, Healy has a viable Speedy Trial Act claim.
After examining these statements again and gauging them against
often irreconcilable case law, we conclude the defendant has the
better of the argument. We distinguish between express agreement
(Turner and Sojak) and mere acquiescence (Beyah and Burchfield).
Here, defense counsels' conduct never became express agreement.
This is not the "silent record" we found in Sojak.
Defense counsel's statements on May 6 ("Sure, Judge") and
June 9 ("Very good, Judge") after the trial court had granted a
continuance to the prosecution are indistinguishable from that of
defense counsel in Smith ("That's fine"). We believe these
statements are not personal concurrences, like the statements in
Turner, but instead are reactions by defense counsel, like those
in Cichanski and Burchfield, to accept the trial court's decision
to offer a continuance to the prosecution.
We also believe defense counsel did not cross the line
between acquiescence and agreement on August 26 when he suggested
continuance dates to the court. Like the trial judge in Beyah,
the trial judge here already had decided to grant a continuance
when she said: "What date would be convenient for you, Counsel?"
Admittedly, like the trial court in Sojak, the trial court
here noted on the half-sheets all the continuances were "B/A" (by
agreement), and the defendant never moved to amend the half-
sheets. Additionally while the trial court conceded the
transcript did not indicate any express agreement, the trial
court said defense counsel never mentioned any continuances were
not by express agreement. There is nothing in the record to
indicate defense counsel saw the half-sheet entries before the
motion for discharge was filed.
The trial judge here on one occasion asked defense counsel
whether a continuance was by agreement, and on that occasion did
not pursue an answer. None was given. Perhaps the trial judge
could have tried to obtain an agreement. But it is the State's
job to bring a criminal case to trial. Here, clearly, there was
no sense of urgency while the test results were awaited. See
People v. Roberson, 289 Ill. App. 3d 344, 347, 681 N.E.2d 1069
(1997).
The defendant has no obligation to examine or correct the
half-sheets and no obligation to inform the trial court or the
prosecution of the expiring term. In short, Healy had no
obligation to bring his own case to trial. Nor did he have the
duty to warn the judge he faced imminent discharge.
The question here is whether this court can say with
complete confidence: "[T]he record does not show any affirmative
act by the defendant which contributed to the actual delay of the
trial, nor any express agreement by the defendant to a
continuance granted on the motion of either the State or the
court." Reimolds, 92 Ill. 2d at 107.
We believe the record does not show any affirmative act or
agreement by Healy which contributed to the delay. We reverse
the conviction and sentence and order Healy's discharge under the
Speedy Trial Act.
REVERSED.
CERDA, P.J., and McNAMARA, J., concur.
December 4, 1997
No. 1-96-3866
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,) APPEAL FROM THE
) CIRCUIT COURT OF
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) COOK COUNTY.
)
v. )
)
KEVIN HEALY, ) HONORABLE
) LORETTA HALL-MORGAN,
Defendant-Appellant. ) JUDGE PRESIDING.
JUSTICE WOLFSON delivered the opinion of the court:
On November 22, 1992, Kevin Healy was arrested by the
Chicago police department and charged with the murder of Laura
Sage. Between March 16, 1993, and September 17, 1993, a period
of 185 days, while Healy was incarcerated awaiting trial, the
prosecution requested five continuances in an attempt to complete
its crime laboratory work. During this time, neither Healy nor
his attorneys caused, contributed to, or agreed to these
continuances.
Because this delay violated the Illinois Speedy Trial Act,
we reverse Healy's conviction and order his discharge.
FACTS
The facts surrounding Sage's murder and Healy's arrest come
from the trial testimony of Healy; Assistant State's Attorney
Stan Gonsalves, who published Healy's confession to the jury; and
Detective Bernard Ryan, who investigated Sage's murder.
In August 1992, Healy picked-up a hitchhiker, Sage, in his
van while driving through Cicero. After talking with Healy for
several minutes, Sage offered to have sex with Healy for money.
Healy agreed, had sex with Sage, and paid her $40.
On November 2, 1992, while his wife was staying at the Mayo
Clinic in Minnesota, Healy sought Sage's company by driving
through Cicero. When he found Sage, Healy accompanied her to a
motel where he paid her again for sex. At the motel, Healy met
Sage's friend, Carnival Bob. Over the next five days, Healy
sought Sage's company in Cicero on several occasions. Healy gave
Sage money for sex, and Sage would use this money for drugs.
Healy saw Sage injecting drugs on several occasions. During this
time, Sage began staying at Healy's house.
On November 7, 1992, while riding in Healy's van, Sage
demanded more money for drugs. When Healy refused, Sage
threatened to tell Healy's wife and employer about his
solicitation of a prostitute, and threatened to have Carnival Bob
burglarize Healy's house. Sage lied down in the back of Healy's
van to rest. Healy followed Sage, kneeled on top of her, and
grabbed her shirt. Healy testified: "I told her to get out of my
truck, to get out of my life." According to Healy, Sage
responded: "She said I was a dead man because she had aids
[sic]." Healy then killed Sage by beating her with a flashlight,
strangling her with a plastic tie-strap, and stabbing her.
On November 13, 1992, Sage's body was found in the Chicago
River. The Chicago police department began its investigation.
After learning Sage's identity, the police met with several of
her friends. The police learned Sage was last seen with a man
named Kevin in a blue van containing Chicago fire department
paraphernalia. On the morning of November 22, 1992, three
detectives went to Healy's house.
At Healy's house, the police observed a blue van in the
driveway. Healy answered the door and met the police briefly.
When Healy admitted his acquaintance with Sage, the police told
Healy they would like to interview him at Area 1 Police
Headquarters "some time in the future." Healy chose to speak
with the police immediately. After nearly six hours of police
interrogation, a failed polygraph test, and eventually an
inculpatory statement, Healy was arrested.
On December 16, 1992, the prosecution returned an indictment
against Healy, and the court set an arraignment for December 29,
1992. Healy agreed to extend this date to January 4, 1993. On
that date, Healy filed a motion to substitute judges and asked
for a bond hearing, which was set for January 20.
On January 20, 1993, Healy filed his discovery motion. The
court offered the prosecution 45 days to complete discovery.
Healy's attorney suggested the parties return on March 16, 1993,
once the prosecution had answered discovery.
On March 16, 1993, the prosecution provided discovery
documents and requested blood, saliva, and hair samples from
Healy. Healy's attorney objected for the record and asked to
file a written response, but the court granted the prosecution's
request. The prosecution asked for six weeks to finish analyzing
these samples. Defense counsel responded, "I have no problem
with any date in May, Judge." Then, the court spoke with defense
counsel:
"THE COURT: Is it a by-agreement date or are you
saying you want time to file your motions, too; file
what motions would be due on said date?
I am trying to set a date, counsel, by which they
can get the work-up done and that information can be
gotten [sic] to you so that their Discovery to you is
complete and it would give you time to review your
Discovery to prepare your answer and file any pretrial
motion that will be heard. Pick a date that would
allow that?
MR. COULES [Defense Attorney]: Any date in May we
will be here."
The court ordered the parties to return on May 6, 1993. No trial
date was set.
On May 6, 1993, the prosecution reported the samples had not
been analyzed and requested another month to complete its tests.
The court said:
"THE COURT: All right. What date do we want?
MR. SEXTON [Assistant State's Attorney]: A month
date.
THE COURT: Today is what? The 6th? Why don't you
pick a date the week of June 7.
MR COULES: Any day will be fine, Judge.
THE COURT: Let's make it the 9th. June 9, status.
MR. COULES: Sure, Judge."
On June 9, 1993, the prosecution again reported the samples
had not been analyzed and requested another month. The court
said:
"THE COURT: Do you have a time frame?
MS. DONOHOE [Assistant State's Attorney]: Judge,
I'm hoping to have it within a month.
THE COURT: Okay counsel, do you want to look at
your calendar. The problem is actually a month from
now I will not be here. I will be on vacation. So
maybe the prudent thing is to set it when I come back.
I will be back on the 19th of July.
MR. BAIRD [Defense Attorney]: I don't have any
problem with the 19th of July.
THE COURT: Okay. And maybe we'll have something
accomplished by then.
MR. BAIRD: Okay. Perhaps if the state does have
the data they can mail it to me prior.
MS. DONOHOE: We certainly will, Judge. We have
mailed some discovery to counsel between the last date
and this date.
THE COURT: Okay. 7-19-93, without, for lab tests
and then if we can get that done maybe on that date he
can look forward to your answer. And any motions.
MR. BAIRD: Very good, Judge."
On July 19, 1993, the prosecution again reported the samples
had not been analyzed and requested yet another month. The court
spoke with counsel:
"THE COURT: Okay, what I'd like to do perhaps is
give this a date where something might be accomplished.
Do you have any requests from the lab understanding
their difficulty and layoffs and so forth, what would
be a reasonable time?
MS. DONOHOE: I'm going to suggest late August. I
will make every effort--I will explain to them that the
Court won't tolerate it.
THE COURT: Right. Counsel, if you will look at a
date convenient to you. I'll be gone late August, a
date towards the end of August.
MR. COULES: Whatever date is convenient to you.
MS. DONOHOE: August 26th."
The court ordered the parties to return on August 26. The case
was set for "status," not trial.
On August 26, 1993, the prosecution had not completed its
analysis of the samples and asked the court for another
extension. The court said to defense counsel:
"THE COURT: What date would be convenient for you,
Counsel? I don't believe it takes five months to
analyze a blood sample.
MR. BAIRD: I would suggest around September 16th
or 17th."
The court ordered the parties to return on September 17.
As of September 17, the critical course of continuances was:
Continuance Duration
March 16-May 6 51 days
May 6-June 9 34 days
June 9-July 19 40 days
July 19-August 26 38 days
August 26-September 17 22 days
Total: March 16-September 17 185 days
On September 17, 1993, the prosecution produced its lab
reports. The court gave Healy until October 14, 1993, to file
any pretrial motions. Among other motions, Healy filed a motion
for discharge under the Speedy Trial Act. On January 18, 1994,
the court denied this motion.
The court acknowledged, "[defense] counsel is absolutely
right and the transcripts have revealed very often the words by
agreement are not said very often." The court mentioned,
however, its "strong feeling that there had never been, up to the
point counsel had filed his motion, any indication anything was
happening except by agreement." The court repeated, "I never had
any indication or thoughts those dates were not by agreement."
The court noted, "[D]uring that period had there been a
concern about the term[,] counsel or the defendant could have
opened his mouth and said so." Further, the court's common law
record (half-sheets) indicates that the continuances at issue
were "B/A" (by agreement).
The court also denied Healy's motions to quash his arrest
and suppress his confession. At trial, the court refused defense
jury instructions relating to second degree murder. On August 1,
1996, Healy was convicted of first degree murder.
On October 23, 1996, after discussing the evidence in
aggravation and mitigation, the court sentenced Healy to 30 years
imprisonment. This appeal followed.
DECISION
On appeal, Healy makes five arguments. First, he contends
he was tried in violation of the Speedy Trial Act. Second, he
contends he was detained without probable cause before his
arrest. Third, he contends his confession was involuntary and
unintentional as a result of his diagnosed mental disorder.
Fourth, he contends the trial court should have instructed the
jury on second degree murder. Fifth, he contends the trial court
ignored mitigating evidence in sentencing.
Because the Speedy Trial Act issue disposes of the entire
case, we need not reach the other issues presented by Healy.
The Illinois Speedy Trial Act provides an enforcement
mechanism for violations of the constitutional right to a speedy
trial. See Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, 8; People v. Morris, 3 Ill. 2d 437, 121 N.E.2d 810 (1954). The statute provides:
"(a) Every person in custody in this State for an
alleged offense shall be tried by the court having
jurisdiction within 120 days from the date he was taken
into custody unless delay is occasioned by the
defendant ***.
* * *
(d) Every person not tried in accordance with ***
this Section shall be discharged from custody ***."
725 ILCS 5/103-5 (West 1992).
A delay is "occasioned by" or attributable to the defendant
when an affirmative act by the defendant causes or contributes to
the delay. People v. Turner, 128 Ill. 2d 540, 539 N.E.2d 1196
(1989); People v. Smith, 251 Ill. App. 3d 839, 623 N.E.2d 857
(1993). An express agreement to a continuance on the record is
an affirmative act attributable to the defendant. People v.
Reimolds, 92 Ill. 2d 101, 440 N.E.2d 872 (1982).
However, mere silence or failure to object to a continuance
requested by the prosecution is not an affirmative act
attributable to the defendant. People v. Cichanski, 81 Ill. App.
3d 619, 401 N.E.2d 1315 (1980); People v. Burchfield, 62 Ill.
App. 3d 754, 379 N.E.2d 375 (1978). Additionally, mere
acquiescence to a date suggested by the court is not an
affirmative act attributable to the defendant. People v. Beyah,
67 Ill. 2d 423, 367 N.E.2d 1334 (1977). See People v. Wyatt, 24 Ill. 2d 151, 180 N.E.2d 478 (1962); People v. House, 10 Ill. 2d 556, 141 N.E.2d 12 (1957).
On appeal, we ordinarily will defer to the trial court's
determination that the defendant bears responsibility for the
delay absent an abuse of discretion. People v. Bowman, 138 Ill. 2d 131, 561 N.E.2d 633 (1990); People v. Harper, 279 Ill. App. 3d
801, 665 N.E.2d 474 (1996). This court is charged with examining
the transcript and the common law record to do complete justice
to both the prosecution and the defendant. People v. Andrade,
279 Ill. App. 3d 292, 664 N.E.2d 256 (1996); People v. Sojak, 273
Ill. App. 3d 579, 652 N.E.2d 1061 (1995). We have done that.
Healy contends the trial court abused its discretion in
attributing to him continuances requested by the prosecution.
In Turner, the defendant requested a number of continuances
after his arrest. Eventually, the trial court set a trial date
for the defendant and his co-defendants. During the trial of his
co-defendant, the defendant's attorney expressly agreed to a
later trial date suggested by the trial court.
On appeal, the court held the delay was attributable to the
defendant. Turner, 128 Ill. 2d at 553-54. The court found the
defendant was not prepared for the original trial date and the
trial judge continued the trial in order to accommodate the
defendant. Turner, 128 Ill. 2d at 553. The record showed "the
Defendant personally concurs" in setting a new trial date.
Turner, 128 Ill. 2d at 552. Accord Smith, 251 Ill. App. 3d at
843 (the defendant "not only agreed, but affirmatively requested"
a new trial date).
In Sojak, a dispute had arisen over certain medical reports
compiled by the defendant's doctors. The State's psychiatrists
needed the records in order to complete their evaluation of the
defendant. The matter was continued. The half-sheet read "by
agreement." Later, the defendant contended he did not agree to
the continuance and he could not be charged with it based on a
silent record. We held, based on the transcript of the
proceedings and the common law record:
"Thus, the record affirmatively establishes that
the defense contributed to the delay in obtaining these
records, a delay which in turn necessitated the
continuance now complained of here." Sojak, 273 Ill.
App. 3d at 583.
In Beyah, the defendant moved for reduction of his bail.
During the bail hearing, as the prosecution began to present
evidence of the defendant's prior criminal records, the trial
court interrupted:
"THE COURT: Motion for bond reduction denied. Go
ahead, pick a date.
MR. GOLDBERG [Assistant State's Attorney]: I have
got others [prior criminal records].
THE COURT: I haven't got time. Pick a date.
We'll give him a trial. I can't talk about bond. If
you're innocent, you walk out. If you're guilty, you
go to jail.
MR. WALTERS [Public Defender]: Set it down for
three weeks from today.
THE COURT: How about October 18?
THE DEFENDANT: Can I get one earlier than that?
THE COURT: I can't give you one earlier than that.
Motion Defendant, with subpoenas, October 18." Beyah,
67 Ill. 2d at 426.
The trial court scheduled the trial in three weeks and charged
the delay to the defendant.
On appeal, our supreme court held the trial court could not
order the defendant to pick a date and then attribute any delay
to the defendant. Beyah, 67 Ill. 2d at 428. Although the record
reflected the trial was set on the defendant's motion, the trial
court had initiated the delay. Beyah, 67 Ill. 2d at 426.
Charging the delay to the defendant would be "a mockery of
justice" because "the court and the court alone" proposed the
continuance even though the defendant took advantage of the
court's offer. Beyah, 67 Ill. 2d at 428 (quoting Wyatt, 24 Ill.
2d at 154).
Similarly, in Cichanski, the defendant requested a trial
date and the court suggested a continuance. The defendant's
attorney said the extension was satisfactory. On appeal, we
held the delay was attributable to the trial court. Cichanski,
81 Ill. App. 3d at 622. The defendant's silence while a date was
set by the court did not contribute to the delay by express
agreement. Cichanski, 81 Ill. App. 3d at 622. Accord:
Burchfield, 62 Ill. App. 3d at 756 (a motion for delay by the
prosecution cannot become a motion for continuance by the
defendant, "merely because the defendant failed to object" to the
delay); People v. Smith, 207 Ill. App. 3d 1072, 1077, 566 N.E.2d 797 (1991)(the statement by defense counsel, "That's fine", in
response to a trial date suggested by the prosecution, did not
constitute an express agreement to a continuance). See also
Wyatt, 24 Ill. 2d at 54 (delay suggested by the court to
unrepresented defendant not attributable to defendant); House, 10 Ill. 2d at 559-60 (delay suggested by the court to unrepresented
defendant not attributable to defendant).
In the instant case, Healy's speedy trial argument addresses
only the five continuances granted between March 13, 1993, and
September 17, 1993. Any delay occasioned by the defendant will
suspend for the time of the delay the period within which the
defendant must be tried. Smith, 207 Ill. App. 3d at 1074. But
the speedy trial clock does not start all over. It merely is
suspended.
Regarding these continuances, the defendant objected to the
underlying tests which caused the discovery delays, which in turn
led to the continuances requested by the prosecution. The
prosecution never answered ready during this period, and the case
was set for status date after status date, but never for trial.
The defendant did nothing to delay the testing process.
The prosecution contends defense counsel's statements to the
trial court regarding these continuances were equivocal.
On March 16, 1993, when the prosecution moved for blood,
saliva, and hair samples, the court asked defense counsel if a
continuance would be by agreement. Defense counsel did not agree
to a continuance, but instead responded, "Any date in May we will
be here." The court ordered the parties to return on May 6.
On May 6, 1993, the court asked defense counsel to pick a
date, and defense counsel answered, "Any day will be fine,
Judge." When the court chose a date, defense counsel said,
"Sure, Judge."
On June 9, 1993, the court asked defense counsel if he could
return on July 19. Defense counsel responded, "I don't have any
problem with the 19th of July." When the court ordered the
parties to return on July 19, defense counsel said, "Very good,
Judge."
On July 19, 1993, when the court asked defense counsel to
pick a date at the end of August, defense counsel said, "Whatever
date is convenient to you." The prosecution suggested August 26,
and the court agreed. August 26 marked the 163d day.
On August 26, 1993, the court asked defense counsel to pick
another date to return. Defense counsel said, "I would suggest
around September 16th or 17th." The court ordered the parties to
return on September 17.
Equivocal or not, defense counsels' statements should not
have been taken as agreement to delay. They clearly were not.
The period from March 16, 1993, to September 17, 1993, is
185 days. Unless continuances amounting to 65 days are
attributable to Healy, Healy has a viable Speedy Trial Act claim.
After examining these statements again and gauging them against
often irreconcilable case law, we conclude the defendant has the
better of the argument. We distinguish between express agreement
(Turner and Sojak) and mere acquiescence (Beyah and Burchfield).
Here, defense counsels' conduct never became express agreement.
This is not the "silent record" we found in Sojak.
Defense counsel's statements on May 6 ("Sure, Judge") and
June 9 ("Very good, Judge") after the trial court had granted a
continuance to the prosecution are indistinguishable from that of
defense counsel in Smith ("That's fine"). We believe these
statements are not personal concurrences, like the statements in
Turner, but instead are reactions by defense counsel, like those
in Cichanski and Burchfield, to accept the trial court's decision
to offer a continuance to the prosecution.
We also believe defense counsel did not cross the line
between acquiescence and agreement on August 26 when he suggested
continuance dates to the court. Like the trial judge in Beyah,
the trial judge here already had decided to grant a continuance
when she said: "What date would be convenient for you, Counsel?"
Admittedly, like the trial court in Sojak, the trial court
here noted on the half-sheets all the continuances were "B/A" (by
agreement), and the defendant never moved to amend the half-
sheets. Additionally while the trial court conceded the
transcript did not indicate any express agreement, the trial
court said defense counsel never mentioned any continuances were
not by express agreement. There is nothing in the record to
indicate defense counsel saw the half-sheet entries before the
motion for discharge was filed.
The trial judge here on one occasion asked defense counsel
whether a continuance was by agreement, and on that occasion did
not pursue an answer. None was given. Perhaps the trial judge
could have tried to obtain an agreement. But it is the State's
job to bring a criminal case to trial. Here, clearly, there was
no sense of urgency while the test results were awaited. See
People v. Roberson, 289 Ill. App. 3d 344, 347, 681 N.E.2d 1069
(1997).
The defendant has no obligation to examine or correct the
half-sheets and no obligation to inform the trial court or the
prosecution of the expiring term. In short, Healy had no
obligation to bring his own case to trial. Nor did he have the
duty to warn the judge he faced imminent discharge.
The question here is whether this court can say with
complete confidence: "[T]he record does not show any affirmative
act by the defendant which contributed to the actual delay of the
trial, nor any express agreement by the defendant to a
continuance granted on the motion of either the State or the
court." Reimolds, 92 Ill. 2d at 107.
We believe the record does not show any affirmative act or
agreement by Healy which contributed to the delay. We reverse
the conviction and sentence and order Healy's discharge under the
Speedy Trial Act.
REVERSED.
CERDA, P.J., and McNAMARA, J., concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
