People v. Sauls

2022 IL 127732

215 N.E.3d 810

465 Ill.Dec. 605

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,

v.Samuel SAULS, Appellant.

Docket No. 127732

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed November 28, 2022.

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.

JUSTICE ANNE M. BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Champaign County, defendant, Samuel Sauls, was convicted of one count of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 20 years in prison. The appellate court affirmed his conviction and sentence. 2021 IL App (4th) 190667-U, 2021 WL 3750023. On appeal to this court, defendant raises two contentions: (1) that the trial court erred in quashing his pretrial subpoena duces tecum without first reviewing in camera the requested discovery documents and (2) that the State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree with defendant's first contention. We therefore reverse the appellate court's judgment and remand the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On August 13, 2018, defendant was charged by information with two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child. Defendant was acquitted by the jury of one of the two counts, which we do not address in this appeal. The count for which defendant was convicted stated, "In that the said defendant, who was 17 years of age or older, committed an act of contact, however slight, between the sex organ of the defendant and the hand of [L.G.P.], who was under 13 years of age when the act was committed, and was for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal of the defendant, in violation of [section 11-1.40(a)(1) of the Criminal Code of 2012 ( 720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1) (West 2018))]."

¶ 4 During the pretrial proceedings, defendant filed a supplemental motion for discovery and production of documents pursuant to Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 412 (eff. Mar. 1, 2001). The motion requested that the State turn over documents pertaining to a Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) investigation against Mercedes G.P., the mother of L.G.P., and Angel W., Mercedes's "live-in girlfriend." The defense specifically requested "DCFS investigations, police reports, and CAC [(Children's Advocacy Center)] interviews regarding allegations of abuse [against Mercedes and Angel] *** which were done in the Fall of 2018."

¶ 5 The State responded that it requested the documents from DCFS but was not successful in obtaining them. The State also asserted that it had searched local police databases for police reports that would satisfy defendant's request but that it appeared no such reports existed.

¶ 6 On March 14, 2019, the parties participated in a hearing on defendant's supplemental discovery motion. During the hearing, defense counsel explained that it had come to her attention that Mercedes and Angel were subject to a DCFS investigation, including a CAC interview, that was determined to be unfounded. No documents from this investigation were turned over to the defense. The State informed the trial court that it had obtained a DCFS case number pertaining to the abuse allegations described in the defense motion but that it was unable to obtain any reports. Accordingly, defense counsel offered to prepare a subpoena duces tecum for the documents.

¶ 7 The trial judge entered an order directing the circuit court clerk to issue a subpoena duces tecum , drafted by defense counsel, to DCFS. On April 11, 2019, the clerk issued a subpoena duces tecum to DCFS, directing it to bring before the court "[a]ll records of investigations including but not limited to written reports, video or audio recording created since September 1, 2018, related to [Mercedes or Angel] in your possession or control."

¶ 8 On May 10, 2019, DCFS, through the Attorney General of Illinois, filed a motion to quash the subpoena. DCFS contended that the records sought by the subpoena pertained to an unfounded report, which was "confidential and inadmissible under Illinois law." In support, DCFS cited section 7.14 of the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act (Reporting Act), which provides:

"[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, an unfounded report shall not be admissible in any judicial or administrative proceeding or action except for proceedings under Sections 2-10 and 2-21 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 involving a petition *** alleging abuse or neglect to the same child, a sibling of the child, or the same perpetrator." 325 ILCS 5/7.14 (West 2018).

Alternatively, DCFS offered to turn over the report to the trial court for an in camera review. If, after reviewing the report, the court determined that limited disclosure was warranted, DCFS requested that the court enter a protective order prohibiting disclosure of the names or identifying information in the report.

¶ 9 At a hearing on the motion to quash subpoena, the State objected to an in camera review of the requested documents because the DCFS report was unfounded and not admissible at trial. Defense counsel argued that the information in the reports was relevant because it pertained to the interests and biases of the victim's mother and her live-in girlfriend and might reveal contradictory statements by the witnesses. The trial court indicated it understood defendant was requesting "to look at unfounded reports for potential impeachment of a witness that testifies at trial." Nevertheless, after hearing argument from both parties, the trial court granted DCFS's motion and quashed the subpoena, without requiring production or in camera review of the requested documents.

¶ 10 The case proceeded to a jury trial on July 29, 2019. L.G.P. testified that in August 2017, when she was seven years old, she and her sister, J.G.P., stayed overnight at defendant's house with defendant's daughter, N.S. N.S. was L.G.P. and J.G.P.’s cousin. L.G.P. testified that she thought her grandmother dropped her off at the sleepover.

¶ 11 L.G.P. testified that she fell asleep while watching a movie in defendant's bedroom with J.G.P., N.S., and defendant. She testified that she and her sister were on the floor and N.S. and defendant were on defendant's bed. At some point during the night, L.G.P. woke up in defendant's bed. She did not know how she got there. L.G.P. testified that, when she woke up in defendant's bed, she initially thought she was holding her fingers. She then realized she was holding defendant's "private" in her hand. She testified that defendant "was just laying down right there and just on his phone I think." She could not remember what defendant was wearing but thought he had on a T-shirt. L.G.P. testified that her hands had "sticky stuff" on them, so she went to the bathroom to wash them and then went back to sleep. She said that the lighting was "darkish, lightish" and could not remember if the television in the bedroom was on.

¶ 12 L.G.P. testified that she did not tell her mother about the incident right away because she was scared. Eventually, she said, she did tell her mother about the incident when she saw N.S. and defendant together " ‘[c]ause I thought he would try to get [N.S.] *** it upset me ’cause I didn't want [N.S.] to go over there cause [unintelligible] same thing happen to her."

¶ 13 On cross-examination, L.G.P. stated she could not remember the color of the sheets or the number of pillows on the bed. When asked whether she remembered telling someone that defendant's hands were under his head and not holding his phone, she responded: "I can't really remember that good, if he had a phone or not. I could just remember, like, the bedroom stuff and like, what happened. But I don't really know the details of stuff."

¶ 14 Francisco G., L.G.P.’s father, testified that in August 2017 he attended a family birthday party for defendant's daughter and L.G.P.’s cousin, N.S., who was turning three years old. Francisco testified that, after the party, defendant invited L.G.P. and her younger sister, J.G.P., to his house for a sleepover with N.S. Francisco testified that, on the day after the sleepover, L.G.P. said "she didn't want to go back [to defendant's house]." When Francisco asked why, "she just looked down *** but she didn't say—she wouldn't say why."

¶ 15 Mercedes, L.G.P.’s mother, testified that she and Francisco dropped L.G.P. and J.G.P. off at defendant's house on the day after N.S.’s third birthday, and they picked them up the following day. Mercedes testified that the girls were quiet in the car. According to Mercedes, L.G.P. told her "a couple days later" that she did not "ever want to spend the night with [defendant] again." Mercedes asked why, and L.G.P. explained that she woke up with defendant's finger in her hand and then asked to use the bathroom to wash her hands. L.G.P. also said that defendant was not wearing a shirt or boxers. Mercedes then asked if anything felt "not normal" to her or if she had been touched, but L.G.P. said no.

¶ 16 Mercedes testified that in May 2018, she had a family gathering at her house, which N.S. attended. L.G.P. later saw N.S. getting into defendant's car and told Mercedes: "Mama, please. Don't let her go with him ’cause he's going to do what he did to me. It wasn't his finger, *** it was his private part." After this disclosure, Mercedes scheduled a doctor's appointment for L.G.P.

¶ 17 Dr. Mary Kathleen Buetow, a licensed pediatrician specializing in child abuse and neglect, testified that she met with L.G.P. and Mercedes. Dr....