People v. Kimbrell
225 Ill. Dec. 758, 291 Ill. App. 3d 605, 684 N.E.2d 443 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court has broad discretion to impose reasonable probation conditions related to the offense or the defendant's rehabilitation, including a "no contact" order with an individual involved in the defendant's criminal conduct, even if that individual is the other parent of the defendant's child and the order causes inconvenience.
Facts:
- Kim Kimbrell lived in an upstairs apartment with her 13-year-old son, while Chris Johnson, the father of her son, lived in the downstairs apartment with another woman, Michelle Crawford.
- In September 1995, two nearby homes were burglarized, and items including jewelry and a grandfather clock were stolen.
- On September 15, 1995, Johnson acquired the stolen jewelry from one of the burglars in exchange for money and methamphetamine.
- Crawford testified that Johnson then had Kimbrell take the stolen jewelry, which she placed in a bag in her purse.
- Another burglar brought other stolen items, including the grandfather clock, to the building where Kimbrell and Johnson lived.
- Kimbrell testified that she found the jewelry inside the stolen grandfather clock in her apartment and took it, intending to use it as leverage against a man she believed had stolen from her.
- Police, acting on a tip from Crawford, executed a search warrant and found the stolen jewelry inside Kimbrell's purse in her upstairs apartment.
- A presentence report noted that police also found cannabis and a large sum of money at the residence during the search.
Procedural Posture:
- In May 1996, a jury in an Illinois trial court convicted defendant, Kim Kimbrell, of theft of property over $300.
- In June 1996, the trial court sentenced Kimbrell to 30 months’ probation.
- As a condition of her probation, the trial court ordered that Kimbrell have no contact with Chris Johnson, the father of her son.
- Kimbrell (as appellant) appealed the sentence to the Illinois Appellate Court, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the 'no contact' condition.
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 a trial court abuse its discretion by imposing a probation condition that prohibits a defendant from having any contact with the father of her child, when that individual is deeply involved in the criminal activity that led to her conviction and poses a threat to her rehabilitation?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice Steigmann
No, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by imposing such a condition. A probation condition is considered reasonable if the trial court believes it is a good idea and the record does not indicate that the imposition of the condition is clearly unreasonable. The Illinois Unified Code of Corrections explicitly allows for conditions requiring a defendant to refrain from contact with specified persons, including drug users or dealers. In this case, the trial court reasonably believed that separating Kimbrell from Johnson's negative influence was necessary for her rehabilitation, as Johnson was involved in receiving stolen property and drug activity. The court noted that Kimbrell's association with Johnson negatively influenced her behavior. The defendant’s argument that the order inconveniences child visitation is of no moment, as visitation can be arranged through a third party and probation conditions are not invalid simply because they are inconvenient or punitive.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the wide latitude trial courts possess in crafting probation conditions tailored to a defendant's rehabilitation and public safety. It establishes that the rehabilitative goals of probation can outweigh a defendant's personal convenience and even interfere with family relationships, particularly when those relationships are intertwined with criminal conduct. The ruling makes it more difficult for defendants to challenge 'no contact' orders based on familial ties, provided the order is rationally connected to preventing recidivism. The court's commentary also underscores a judicial philosophy that probation should be genuinely punitive and restrictive, not merely 'getting paper,' to serve as an effective deterrent.
