People v. Meyer
176 Ill. 2d 372, 223 Ill. Dec. 582, 680 N.E.2d 315 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A condition of probation requiring a defendant to post a large, public sign at his residence announcing his status as a violent felon is not a "reasonable condition" under section 5–6–3(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections. Such a condition constitutes an unauthorized shaming penalty that is inconsistent with the rehabilitative purposes of probation.
Facts:
- Gary Mason visited Glenn Meyer's farm to return vehicle parts he had purchased from Meyer.
- Meyer and Mason began to quarrel over whether the parts were functioning properly.
- During the argument, Meyer swung one of the parts at Mason, striking him in the nose and eye and causing several injuries.
- Evidence showed Meyer had a history of other violent incidents on his farm.
- Meyer had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and was taking medication for his condition.
- Meyer lived on the farm with his wife of 36 years, and his elderly mother also intended to live there.
Procedural Posture:
- Glenn Meyer was convicted of aggravated battery by a jury in the circuit court (trial court).
- The circuit court sentenced Meyer to 30 months' probation, which included the condition that he post a 'violent felon' warning sign at the entrances to his farm.
- Meyer (as appellant) appealed his sentence to the Illinois Appellate Court, arguing the sign was an improper condition of probation.
- The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's sentence, finding the sign was a reasonable condition of probation.
- The Supreme Court of Illinois granted Meyer leave to appeal.
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 section 5–6–3(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections authorize a trial court to order, as a condition of probation, that a defendant post a large sign at the entrances to his property reading: 'Warning! A Violent Felon lives here. Enter at your own Risk!'?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McMorrow
No. The trial court was not authorized to order the warning sign as a condition of probation because it is not a reasonable condition under the Unified Code of Corrections. The primary purpose of probation is to restore an offender to useful citizenship, and while probation is a form of punishment, a condition primarily designed for public humiliation is inconsistent with the statute's rehabilitative goals. The court reasoned that shaming penalties like the sign are not contemplated by the Code, may have unpredictable and adverse psychological effects on the defendant that hamper rehabilitation, and unfairly affect innocent family members residing on the property. The authority to define such drastic and novel punishments belongs to the legislature, not the courts.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Miller
Yes, the sign was an inappropriate condition of probation. However, the majority's remedy of simply vacating that condition is incorrect. Because the sign was an important part of the original sentence, the entire sentence should be vacated and the case should be remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing. This would allow the trial judge to reconsider the entire sentence in light of the Supreme Court's holding.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Bilandic
Yes, the sign condition was not reasonable. Like Justice Miller, I would vacate the entire sentence and remand the cause to the circuit court for a new sentencing hearing consistent with the majority's opinion, rather than just vacating the single improper condition.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the discretion of trial courts in imposing creative or 'shaming' sentences as conditions of probation in Illinois. It establishes that probation conditions must align with the state's legislatively defined penological policy, which prioritizes rehabilitation over public humiliation. The case sets a precedent that trial courts cannot impose novel punishments with unknown psychological consequences, especially those that also punish innocent third parties like family members. Future courts must now carefully evaluate whether an unconventional condition of probation serves a legitimate rehabilitative purpose or is merely a punitive act of public shaming, which is not authorized by the Code of Corrections.
