People v. Bronson

2021 IL App (4th) 190164-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID L. BRONSON, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-19-0164

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

February 8, 2021

NOTICE

This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Livingston County

No. 18CF35

Honorable Jennifer H. Bauknecht, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Knecht concurred in the judgment.

Justice DeArmond specially concurred.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The evidence was sufficient to convict defendant for unlawful possession of a hypodermic syringe. The evidence was insufficient to convict defendant for obstructing justice.

¶ 2 In December 2018, following a bench trial, defendant, David L. Bronson, was found guilty of obstructing justice (720 ILCS 5/31-4(a)(1) (West 2016)), unlawful possession of a hypodermic syringe (720 ILCS 635/1 (West 2018)), and possession of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 2018)). On appeal, defendant argues his convictions for unlawful possession of a hypodermic syringe and obstructing justice should be reversed because the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to sustain his conviction. We affirm defendant's conviction for unlawful possession of a hypodermic syringe, reverse his conviction for obstructing justice, and remand his case for resentencing on his remaining convictions.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On February 2, 2018, the State charged defendant with one count of obstructing justice (720 ILCS 5/31-4(a) (West 2016)) and one count of unlawful possession of a hypodermic syringe (720 ILCS 635/1 (West 2018)). The State subsequently charged defendant with one count of possession of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 2018)). Defendant's case proceeded to a bench trial in October 2018.

¶ 5 At defendant's trial, the State first presented testimony from Corporal Derek Schumm of the Pontiac Police Department. Corporal Schumm testified that, on January 31, 2018, he responded to a report of a possible drug overdose. Less than a minute after Corporal Schumm received the call, he arrived at the scene of the reported overdose. It had apparently occurred inside a parked van one block away from the police department's headquarters. Another officer arrived shortly thereafter. While the other officer tended to the overdose victim, Corporal Schumm spoke with a witness. According to Corporal Schumm, the witness told him of two other "persons of interest," a man and a woman who had "left the scene" prior to the officers' arrival. Officers then began looking for the two individuals.

¶ 6 Corporal Schumm testified that, minutes after the police began their search, Major Dan Davis, another Pontiac police officer, located defendant and a woman one block from the scene. Corporal Schumm joined Major Davis and the two questioned defendant "about the van and what had happened." According to Corporal Schumm, defendant "[i]nitially *** denied even being in the van." However, after Corporal Schumm confronted defendant with "what [he] had seen with the overdosing subject" and with the statement of the witness with whom he had spoken, defendantadmitted he had been in the van and had left when the person started to overdose. After a search of defendant's person failed to reveal any evidence, Corporal Schumm asked defendant "about any disposal of possible evidence." According to Corporal Schumm, defendant at first "denied getting rid of anything after he left the van" but later admitted to disposing of "a couple of syringes and a spoon" along the north side of the church that was adjacent to the location where Corporal Schumm and Major Davis were questioning defendant. Defendant then led the officers to the place where he had dropped the items. The officers collected the hypodermic syringes and spoon and arrested defendant.

¶ 7 The State also called Major Dan Davis who testified consistently with Corporal Schumm. However, Major Davis added that defendant admitted to hiding the hypodermic syringes and spoon along the side of the church after he first saw Major Davis approach him in his squad car.

¶ 8 After Major Davis testified, defendant's bench trial was continued on the State's motion. When the trial resumed, the State presented a laboratory report from the Illinois State Police Division of Forensic Services, the contents of which had been stipulated to by defendant. According to the report, residue on the spoon collected by officers tested positive for fentanyl. The State then rested.

¶ 9 Defendant testified on his own behalf. According to defendant, on January 31, 2018, he was walking near a church when he noticed "police everywhere and a drug dog and an ambulance." Defendant testified officers then approached him, told him they had discovered "the needles and the spoon," and began questioning him. Defendant denied that he had ever possessed the spoon or the hypodermic needles and denied that he had placed the items near the church. Thedefense then rested.

¶ 10 After closing arguments, the trial court found defendant guilty of all charges. Later, the court conducted a sentencing hearing at which it rendered an aggregate sentence for all three convictions of 24 months' probation, 40 hours' community service, and 180 days' imprisonment, which the court held in abeyance pending completion of his term of probation. The court subsequently denied defendant's motion for a new trial.

¶ 11 This appeal followed.

¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13 On appeal, defendant argues his convictions for unlawful possession of a hypodermic syringe and obstructing justice should be reversed because the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to sustain his convictions.

¶ 14 "The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of an offense." People v. Gray, 2017 IL 120958, ¶ 35, 91 N.E.3d 876. When reviewing a claim that the State's evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction, we must determine whether, "viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found the required elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Bradford, 2016 IL 118674, ¶ 12, 50 N.E.3d 1112. Under this standard of review, we will only reverse a conviction where the evidence is "so improbable and unsatisfactory it creates a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt." People v. Lewis, 2019 IL App (4th) 150637-B, ¶ 79, 123 N.E.3d 1153.

¶ 15 A. The Evidence Was Sufficient to Convict Defendant

for Possession of a Hypodermic Syringe

¶ 16 Defendant argues his conviction for unlawful possession of a hypodermic syringeshould be reversed because the State failed to establish a necessary element of the offense. Defendant was charged with, and convicted of, violating section 635/1 of the Hypodermic Syringes and Needles Act. That section provides, in relevant part:

"(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), no person *** shall have in his or her possession a hypodermic syringe, hypodermic needle, or any instrument adapted for the use of controlled substances or cannabis by subcutaneous injection.

(b) A person who is at least 18 years of age may purchase from a pharmacy and have in his or her possession up to 100 hypodermic syringes or needles." 720 ILCS 635/1 (West 2018).

¶ 17 Defendant's argument that the State failed to prove him guilty of violating the Hypodermic Syringes and Needles Act is predicated on his interpretation of subsection 635/1(a). Defendant contends the clause "adapted for the use of controlled substances or cannabis by subcutaneous injection" not only modifies the word "instrument," but also modifies "hypodermic syringe" and "hypodermic needle." Accordingly, defendant argues, to sustain his conviction, the State was required to present evidence that he possessed a hypodermic syringe or needle adapted for the subcutaneous injection of a controlled substance or cannabis. The State disagrees with defendant's interpretation. Because the parties disagree whether possession of a hypodermic syringe, in the absence of evidence it has been adapted for the use of controlled substances or cannabis by subcutaneous injection, violates the Hypodermic Syringes and Needles Act, we must first construe the statutory language before addressing defendant's sufficiency of the evidence claim. See, e.g., Bradford, 2016 IL 118674, ¶ 14.

¶ 18 The rules governing statutory construction are well-established. "The primaryobjective of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the true intent of the legislature." People v. Clark, 2019 IL 122891, ¶ 18, 135 N.E.3d 21. "The best indication of this intent is the statutory language, given its plain and ordinary meaning. [Citation.] The words and phrases in a statute should be construed in light of other relevant provisions and not in isolation. [Citation.]" Bradford, 2016 IL 118674, ¶ 15. "We construe statutes as a whole, so that no part is rendered meaningless or superfluous." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Diggins, 235 Ill. 2d 48, 54, 919 N.E.2d 327, 331 (2009). In construing statutory language, we may consider "the reason for the law, the problems sought to be remedied, the purposes to be achieved, and the consequences of construing the statute one way or another." People v. Gutman, 2011 IL 110338, ¶ 12, 959 N.E.2d 621. "Where the language is plain and unambiguous, it must be applied without resort to further aids of statutory construction. [Citation.] Where the language is ambiguous, however, we may consider external sources, such as legislative history, in order to discern the intent of the legislature. [Citation.]" Bradford, 2016 IL 118674, ¶ 15. "The language of a statute is ambiguous if it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation." People v. Boyce, 2015 IL 117108, ¶ 22, 27 N.E.3d 77.

¶ 19 Here, we find section 635/1 is not...