People v. Hutt

2023 IL 128170

220 N.E.3d 1088

468 Ill.Dec. 309

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,

v.Oliver J. HUTT, Appellant.

Docket No. 128170

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed May 18, 2023

James E. Chadd, State Appellate Defender, Catherine K. Hart, Deputy Defender, and James Henry Waller, Assistant Appellate Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Springfield, for appellant.

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Katherine M. Doersch and Mitchell J. Ness, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

JUSTICE O'BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant, Oliver J. Hutt, was convicted of obstructing justice and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) following a bench trial. The Fourth District affirmed defendant's convictions. 2022 IL App (4th) 190142, 456 Ill.Dec. 639, 193 N.E.3d 879. We granted defendant's petition for leave to appeal. On appeal to this court, defendant contends that the trial court improperly denied him a jury trial in the DUI case and that the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty of obstructing justice. We affirm defendant's DUI conviction but reverse defendant's obstructing justice conviction.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On May 22, 2017, defendant was charged by information with obstructing justice (case No. 17-CF-405) ( 720 ILCS 5/31-4(a)(1) (West 2016)), for an accident that occurred on May 20, 2017. Defendant was also charged with DUI (case No. 17-DT-51) ( 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2016)), leaving the scene of an accident (case No. 17-TR-2415) (id. § 11-402), and improper lane usage (case No. 17-TR-2416) (id. § 11-709). At the time of his arrest for the May 2017 accident, defendant was on bond from a separate 2016 criminal case in which he was charged with resisting a peace officer and criminal damage to property (case No. 16-CF-752).

¶ 4 On July 14, 2017, the Adams County circuit court found probable cause at the preliminary hearing and arraigned defendant on the charges arising from the May 2017 accident (obstructing justice, DUI, leaving the scene of an accident, and improper lane usage). The trial court informed defendant of the possible penalties for the felony obstructing justice offense and informed defendant of his rights to counsel, to a speedy public trial, to remain silent, to be present, and to confront witnesses. The trial court also informed defendant that he was presumed innocent and that defendant had the right to plead guilty or not guilty. Defendant pleaded not guilty and asked that the matter be set on the next jury docket. The trial court set the matter for jury trial on September 11, 2017, specifying that the DUI and traffic cases were set along with the obstructing justice case.

¶ 5 All matters were later continued, and on September 29, 2017, defendant appeared in court for a final pretrial conference on the four cases arising from the 2017 accident and the separate 2016 case. A jury trial on all five cases was scheduled for October 10, 2017. The State indicated that it planned to try the 2016 case first.

¶ 6 On October 10, 2017, defendant appeared for his jury trial on all five cases. The transcript from that date, however, only indicates the two felony case numbers (case Nos. 16-CF-752 and 17-CF-405). Since the State had elected to proceed with the 2016 case first, the trial court began by advising defendant of those charges and the possible penalties. The court then advised defendant of the possible penalties in case No. 17-CF-405. The trial court informed defendant that, based on a prior felony conviction, defendant was facing extended-term sentences in both felony cases, which would be mandatorily consecutive due to the fact that defendant was out on bond when he committed the second offense. At that point, court was adjourned to allow defendant to speak to his attorney to consider a plea offer. Upon return, defense counsel indicated that defendant wanted to accept the State's offer and defense counsel had prepared a jury waiver. The trial court admonished defendant that he had the absolute right to a jury trial and asked defendant if he intended to waive his right to a jury trial in both felony cases. A jury trial waiver, signed by defendant, was presented to the judge. The signed waiver only lists the two felony cases, and the trial court stated: "I've now been handed a written waiver of your right to a jury trial in Adams County Cases 16-CF-752 and 17-CF-405" and found that defendant had "knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial in Adams County 16-CF-752 and 17-CF-405." The written order entered on October 10, 2017, indicating that defendant waived a jury trial, lists all five case numbers (case Nos. 16-CF-752, 17-CF-405, 17-DT-51, 17-TR-2415, and 17-TR-2416).

¶ 7 At the next hearing, on October 25, 2017, and before a different judge, the trial court announced all five cases, including the DUI, and noted that defendant had previously waived his right to a jury trial. When asked by the court how he wanted to proceed, defendant did not dispute that he had waived a jury trial. Instead, defendant explained why he had "waived [his] jury trial." The trial court informed defendant that, unless he filed a motion to withdraw his jury trial waiver, the court was going to set the cases for a bench trial. All matters were set for a bench trial, again beginning with the 2016 case.

¶ 8 On March 21, 2018, after a bench trial had been held in the 2016 case, that case was called for sentencing, and the four cases arising from the 2017 accident were called for status. Defense counsel indicated that defendant wished to proceed to trial in case No. 17-CF-405 and defendant did not believe that he had waived a jury trial in his obstructing justice case. The DUI case was not mentioned. The trial court set the matter for status on April 25, 2018, so that it could review a transcript of the October 10, 2017, waiver hearing.

¶ 9 At the status hearing on April 25, 2018, all five cases were called. Defense counsel indicated that the sentencing issue had been resolved in the 2016 case, defendant had waived his right to a jury trial in case No. 17-CF-405, and the DUI and traffic matters were to be tried with case No. 17-CF-405. Defense counsel relayed to the court defendant's request that the bench trial on the four 2017 cases proceed prior to sentencing on the 2016 case. A bench trial was set for the four cases arising out of the May 2017 accident (case Nos. 17-CF-405, 17-DT-51, 17-TR-2415, and 17-TR-2416). Those four case numbers were called for a joint bench trial on June 26, 2018, which proceeded without objection from defendant.

¶ 10 Nakita Paetow testified that she heard a loud boom in front of her home on May 20, 2017. Upon going outside to investigate, she saw a westbound black vehicle strike the truck parked eastbound in front of her house. The black vehicle was already damaged when it struck the truck. The black vehicle proceeded about a half a block, where it stopped in the middle of the road and a male emerged from the driver's side and a female from the passenger side of the vehicle. The male fell three times while he tried to run away. Paetow identified the male as defendant.

¶ 11 Zach Bemis, an officer with the Quincy Police Department, testified that on May 20, 2017, he was on duty as a patrol officer. A female individual flagged him down, indicating that there was an unknown male individual sitting on her front porch and directing Bemis to a vehicle in the middle of the road with some front-end damage. Bemis noted the damaged black Ford vehicle, which was registered to defendant. Bemis then proceeded to the female individual's porch, where defendant was sitting in a chair. Defendant reported that he had been sitting on the porch all day and that he had not been driving. Bemis could smell alcohol on defendant's breath, and defendant appeared intoxicated.

¶ 12 Bemis placed defendant under arrest for leaving the scene of an accident, DUI, and improper lane usage. Bemis transported defendant to the police station. At the police station, defendant refused to perform field-sobriety tests. Defendant also refused to submit to a breath alcohol test.

¶ 13 Bemis prepared a complaint for a search warrant and presented it to a judge, who issued a search warrant. Defendant was transported to Blessing Hospital by Officer Robert MeGee of the Quincy Police Department. Bemis met defendant and MeGee at the hospital with the signed search warrant and showed it to defendant, informing defendant that the warrant required defendant to provide blood and urine samples. Defendant told Bemis that he needed time to think about it. Bemis asked if defendant was refusing. Defendant did not respond to Bemis but asked the phlebotomist a question regarding bond. Bemis interpreted defendant's lack of response as a refusal to submit to the tests ordered by the search warrant. Bemis testified that it was the policy of the Quincy Police Department to present a search warrant to a defendant and explain what it requires but to not forcibly try to take a blood sample if the defendant refuses to voluntarily provide one.

¶ 14 Officer MeGee testified that he transported defendant to the laboratory area at Blessing Hospital at the request of Bemis, while Bemis obtained a search warrant. When Bemis arrived with the search warrant, Bemis showed the warrant to defendant, read it over with defendant, and asked if defendant was going to give a blood and urine sample. According to MeGee, defendant did not respond to Bemis but addressed the phlebotomist, asking the amount of his bond. The phlebotomist and MeGee each asked defendant to provide a sample. While defendant never said the exact words "no, I am going to refuse to give you blood or give you urine," MeGee testified that, when defendant was asked to provide a blood sample or a urine sample, defendant stated no. Defendant...