People v. Gallegos
228 Ill. Dec. 351, 689 N.E.2d 223, 293 Ill. App. 3d 873 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state legislature may constitutionally eliminate the common law requirement for the prosecution to prove venue as a substantive element of a criminal offense at trial, as this requirement is not derived from the constitutional right to a trial in the county where the offense is alleged to have occurred.
Facts:
- On December 17, 1995, Elk Grove Village police officer Frank Vrchota discovered the disabled vehicle of Vince Gallegos.
- The vehicle was located near the county line separating Du Page and Cook Counties.
- Gallegos was subsequently charged in Du Page County with several offenses, including driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).
- During the trial, the State did not present evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged DUI occurred specifically within Du Page County.
Procedural Posture:
- Vince Gallegos was charged in the circuit court of Du Page County, a trial court, with driving under the influence and other offenses.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial.
- At the close of the State's case, Gallegos moved for a directed verdict, arguing the State had failed to prove venue.
- The trial court denied the motion, ruling that a statutory amendment had removed the State's burden to prove venue.
- Gallegos was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol.
- Gallegos, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court, arguing the statute was unconstitutional.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 1995 legislative amendment to section 1-6 of the Illinois Criminal Code, which eliminates the State's common law burden to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, violate the separation of powers doctrine by infringing on a defendant's constitutional right to a trial by jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Homer
No. The legislative amendment eliminating the State's burden to prove venue at trial does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because this burden was a creation of the common law, not the constitution. The court distinguished between two aspects of venue: the procedural right and the substantive requirement. The procedural aspect, rooted in the Illinois Constitution, grants a defendant the right to be tried in the county where the offense is alleged to have occurred, but this is a personal right that is waived if not challenged before trial. The substantive aspect, which required the State to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt as a material element of the offense, was a product of common law. The legislature possesses the inherent power to repeal or modify the common law, and in doing so, it did not infringe upon a constitutional right.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the crucial distinction between the constitutional (procedural) right to a particular venue and the common law (substantive) requirement of proving that venue at trial. By classifying the burden of proof for venue as a non-constitutional, common law element, the court affirmed the legislature's broad authority to define the elements of criminal offenses. This ruling significantly alters trial practice by shifting the onus onto the defendant to contest the place of trial pre-trial, effectively eliminating the possibility of an acquittal based on the prosecution's failure to prove the specific county of the offense. It streamlines prosecutions for crimes occurring near jurisdictional boundaries where the exact location may be ambiguous.
