People v. McBride

224 N.E.3d 255

2022 IL App (4th) 220301

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Natasha L. MCBRIDE, Defendant-Appellee.

NO. 4-22-0301

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Filed December 6, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Adams County, No. 20CF500, Honorable Amy Christine Lannerd, Judge Presiding.

Gary L. Farha, State’s Attorney, of Quincy (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Luke McNeill, of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

James E. Chadd, Catherine K. Hart, and Amy J. Kemp, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Springfield, for appellee.

OPINION

JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The State charged defendant, Natasha L. McBride, with 17 offenses arising out of a fatal motor vehicle collision, The trial court dismissed one of those charges—aggravated driving under the influence (DUI) of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (625 ILCS 5/11-501(d)(1)(F) (West 2020))—before trial on speedy-trial grounds. The State appeals that order. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On August 14, 2020, defendant, while operating a motor vehicle, collided with another vehicle, killing four people in the other vehicle. On August 17, 2020, the State charged defendant in an information with four counts of leaving the scene of a personal injury accident (625 ILCS 5/11-401(b) (West 2020)), four counts of reckless homicide (720 ILCS 5/9-3(a) (West 2020)), and four counts of driving while license revoked (625 ILCS 5/6-303(a) (West 2020)). On August 20, 2020, the State charged defendant in an indictment with those same offenses, plus four counts of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) (West 2020)).

¶ 4 Defendant never posted bond. She asserted an insanity defense. The case was continued numerous times on defendant’s motion. When defendant finally demanded trial, the court set the matter for a trial in December 2021. However, as this trial date approached, the State was not ready to try the case, as its expert required additional information before rendering an opinion regarding defendant’s sanity. Over defendant’s objection, the court removed the case from the December 2021 jury trial docket. The court rescheduled the trial for February 2022, with a deadline of December 30, 2021, for completion of discovery.

¶ 5 On December 29, 2021, the State moved for an extension of the discovery deadline. Before the court heard that motion, on January 11, 2022, the State charged defendant with aggravated DUI in count XVII of an amended information. Specifically, the State alleged that on August 14, 2020, defendant operated her vehi- cle "while under the influence of tetrahydrocannabinol" and two or more people died in the collision. On January 12, 2022, the State filed a second amended information correcting an error unrelated to the issue in this appeal. On January 14, 2022, over defendant’s objection, the court granted the State’s motion for an extension of the discovery deadline.

¶ 6 The defense contemplated both retaining a second expert to counter the aggravated DUI charge and filing additional motions pertaining to that charge. Defendant thus moved to continue the February 2022 trial date, asking for the additional delay to be attributed to the State. In her motion, defendant asserted that count XVII was predicated on discovery that had been "in the possession of the State since at least December 7, 2020, if hot earlier." Defendant did not specify in her motion what that discovery entailed.

¶ 7 At the January 28, 2022, hearing on defendant’s motion for a continuance, there was a dialogue between the attorneys about when the State received information that prompted the aggravated DUI charge in count XVII. The conversation is difficult to follow from the transcript, as it is not clear that the attorneys were talking about the same things. Defense counsel said he believed count XVII was based on a "lab result" that he received on December 7, 2020. However, the prosecutor said that the state’s attorney’s office received "the actual lab result" on April 29, 2021, not in December 2020. The prosecutor also said that count XVII was based on unspecified evidence that came to light on and after December 7, 2020, including information received as recently as "two weeks ago." Ultimately, the State did not object to defendant’s motion for a continuance, though the State objected to the delay being attributed to the State. The court declined to attribute to the State defendant’s requested continuance of the trial, In light of that ruling, defendant renewed her request for a continuance of the trial, and the State had no objection. Thus, on defendant’s motion, the court set the matter on the April 2022 trial docket.

¶ 8 Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss count XVII on speedy-trial grounds. She filed an amended motion on March 15, 2022. According to defendant, count XVII was subject to compulsory joinder with the original charges filed against her in August 2020. From this premise, defendant reasoned that any continuances attributable to her on the original charges were not attributable to her on count XVII. Therefore, because defendant had been in custody for more than 500 days by the time the State filed count XVII, defendant asked the court to dismiss that count.

¶ 9 In paragraph 14 of defendant’s amended motion to dismiss, defendant referenced facts that the officers who investigated the collision knew in August 2020. Specifically, in paragraph 14(a), defendant referenced the following facts taken from a police report that was prepared by Officer Mike Cirrincione: (1) "Officer Haistings" [sic] told Cirrincione that defendant "‘showed signs of being under the influence’"; (2) defendant purportedly told Cirrincione that she smoked cannabis approximately five minutes before leaving her residence; and (3) when Cirrincione asked defendant if she was under the influence of cannabis while driving, defendant purportedly said, "‘Yes.’" In paragraph 14(b), defendant alleged that "the police had knowledge of the defendant’s purported cannabis consumption because of their observations in combination with the statement the defendant made directly to the police." In paragraph 14(c), defendant alleged that she was written a citation for aggravated DUI on August 14, 2020, though she acknowledged such citation "does not contain a case number and does not appear to have ever been filed with the court."

¶ 10 Defendant attached to her amended motion to dismiss count XVII two pages of a police report, along with her August 14, 2020, citation for aggravated DUI. In addition to the facts referenced above, in the police report, Cirrincione documented that while he was at Blessing Hospital after the collision, he observed indicators that defendant had used stimulants. Specifically, Cirrincione wrote that defendant (1) constantly asked for water; (2) "had uncontrollable tremors in her legs, fast speech, was talkative and [was] restless"; (3) had a temperature; and (4) had a "heart rate in the 160’s while she was laying down." Cirrincione wrote that he asked defendant if she had used methamphetamine, and she responded: "No, hardly any." When asked about using marijuana, defendant likewise told Cirrincione: "Hardly any."

¶ 11 On March 23, 2022, the matter proceeded to an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s amended motion to dismiss count XVII. Officer Amber Hastings of the Quincy Police Department testified for the defense. Hastings testified that she observed defendant at the scene of the collision on August 14, 2020. Based on defendant’s "movements and repeated comments," Hastings suspected that defendant was "under the influence of something." Defendant’s unspecified "behaviors" at Blessing Hospital after the collision likewise gave rise to Hasting’s suspicions. Hastings told Cirrincione of her belief that defendant was under the influence of some substance.

¶ 12 Cirrincione, who formerly worked for the Quincy Police Department, also testified for the defense. After the collision on August 14, 2020, Cirrincione observed defendant at Blessing Hospital for "a significant amount of time"—approximately an hour and a half or two hours. Defendant’s blood and urine were "drawn" around 6 p.m. At the hospital, defendant told Cirrincione she had "smoked cannabis approximately five minutes before driving." Defendant also told Cirrincione she was "under the influence of cannabis at the time of the crash." However, according to Cirrincione, defendant quickly changed her answer and denied being under the influence of cannabis at the time of the crash.

¶ 13 Cirrincione further testified that, on the date of the collision, he wrote defendant a citation for aggravated DUI. Cirrincione "put several tickets on file at the Quincy Police Department," which were to be served after defendant was released from the hospital. Cirrincione did not know whether the aggravated DUI "ticket" was ever "filed," though he "put it with the necessary paperwork" for defendant to be served. On August 14, 2020, Cirrincione "Mirandized" defendant (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)), and he believed he told her she was "under arrest for DUI." Defendant then remained at Blessing Hospital for "some time after August 14th." Cirrincione believed there was a "constant police presence" guarding defendant while she was hospitalized.

¶ 14 On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Cirrincione whether he was "aware that Blessing Hospital did a drug screen on [defendant] that was negative at the time." Cirrincione responded: "I had later learned that. They don’t quantify it." Cirrincione then said "later" "there was a laboratory report" from the University of Illinois Chicago "on a bottle of urine" that "had a different result." Cirrincione did not recall either the date of this laboratory report or the result, other than that "it was over the ten nanogram other bodily substance...