People v. Comage ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                          Docket No. 109495.
    IN THE
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v.
    DANNY COMAGE, Appellant.
    Opinion filed February 25, 2011.
    JUSTICE BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with
    opinion.
    Chief Justice Kilbride and Justice Theis concurred in the
    judgment and opinion.
    Justice Freeman specially concurred, with opinion.
    Justice Thomas dissented, with opinion, joined by Justices
    Garman and Karmeier.
    OPINION
    In this case, we must determine whether certain physical evidence
    was “concealed” within the meaning of Illinois’ obstructing justice
    statute when police officers knew where the evidence was and had no
    difficulty recovering it, but the evidence was out of the officers’ sight
    for approximately 20 seconds. The appellate court concluded that the
    evidence was concealed and, on that basis, affirmed the defendant’s
    conviction for obstructing justice. 
    395 Ill. App. 3d 560
    . For the
    reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court.
    Background
    In March 2007, the State charged the defendant, Danny Comage,
    with obstructing justice (720 ILCS 5/31–4(a) (West 2006)), alleging
    that defendant, “with the intent to obstruct the prosecution of himself
    for possessing drug paraphernalia, knowingly concealed physical
    evidence, in that he threw a metal pipe and push-rod[1] over a wooden
    privacy fence and out of view while being pursued by police.” The
    State also charged defendant with unlawful possession of drug
    paraphernalia (720 ILCS 600/3.5 (West 2006)) and resisting a peace
    officer (720 ILCS 5/31–1 (West 2006)).
    In July 2007, a jury in the circuit court of Macon County
    convicted defendant of obstructing justice and resisting a peace
    officer but found him not guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia.
    Defendant subsequently filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding
    the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial. Defendant contended,
    inter alia, that one of the State’s witnesses made reference to
    defendant having invoked his right to remain silent during police
    questioning in violation of Doyle v. Ohio, 
    426 U.S. 610
    (1976). The
    trial court granted defendant’s motion for a new trial. Thereafter, the
    trial court dismissed the unlawful possession count on double
    jeopardy grounds and the State then voluntarily dismissed the charge
    for resisting arrest.
    A second jury trial commenced in February 2008 on the
    remaining charge of obstructing justice. Officers Chad Larner and
    Kathleen Romer, both of the Decatur police department, testified on
    behalf of the State. On the night of March 19, 2007, shortly before
    10:50 p.m., Larner was investigating a theft at a gas station in the 900
    block of West Eldorado Street in Decatur. Larner began looking for
    the suspect, who had been described as a clean-shaven, thinly built,
    black man who was wearing “nice casual clothes.” While patrolling
    the area, Larner observed a man who matched the suspect’s
    description in the parking lot of a McDonald’s restaurant. The man
    ran south from the parking lot, across Eldorado Street, and into the
    parking lot of a Pizza Hut restaurant. Larner stopped the man, advised
    him of the purpose for the stop, and asked for identification. The man
    1
    A “push-rod” is a tool used to clean and pack drugs into crack pipes.
    -2-
    identified himself as defendant.
    As Larner was conducting a warrant check on defendant, Officer
    Kathleen Romer arrived. While the officers were talking to defendant,
    Romer noticed that defendant began to act strangely: jumping around,
    fidgeting, and at one point, threatening to urinate on the squad car. As
    the dispatcher radioed back information about defendant to the
    officers, defendant took off running through the parking lot. The two
    officers chased defendant for 20 to 30 yards before he finally stopped.
    During the chase, both officers saw defendant reach into his
    pocket, pull out two rod-like objects that were five to six inches in
    length, and throw them over a six-foot-tall, wooden privacy fence that
    abutted the Pizza Hut parking lot. The officers were a short distance
    behind defendant when he threw the objects. Larner stated that the
    area was “well-lit with artificial lighting” and that he had a “clear
    observation” of defendant as they were running. Defendant stopped
    10 to 15 feet after throwing the objects when Romer threatened to use
    her Taser.
    After securing defendant, Larner walked around to the other side
    of the fence to recover the objects defendant had thrown. Larner
    found a crack cocaine pipe and a push rod in a parking lot on the
    other side of the fence. At trial, Larner testified that he clearly saw
    defendant toss the items over the fence and that the items were within
    10 feet of where defendant was apprehended. Larner further stated
    that he located the items “twenty seconds” after he went to look for
    them. The jury found defendant guilty.
    Defendant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the
    verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. Citing In re M.F., 315 Ill.
    App. 3d 641 (2000), defendant contended he had not concealed
    evidence because the officers in this case observed him toss the crack
    pipe and push rod over the fence and knew where the items were, and
    the officers promptly retrieved the items with no difficulty. The trial
    court denied defendant’s motion. Defendant was then sentenced to
    three years’ imprisonment.
    Defendant appealed, arguing that the State failed to prove him
    guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the items at issue were
    never concealed within the meaning of the obstructing justice statute.
    The appellate court, with one justice dissenting, affirmed. 295 Ill.
    -3-
    App. 3d 560. We allowed defendant’s petition for leave to appeal. Ill.
    S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Feb. 26, 2010).
    Analysis
    Illinois’ obstructing justice statute, section 31–4 of the Criminal
    Code of 1961, provides:
    “A person obstructs justice when, with intent to prevent
    the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense of any
    person, he knowingly commits any of the following acts:
    (a) Destroys, alters, conceals or disguises physical
    evidence, plants false evidence, furnishes false
    information[.]” 720 ILCS 5/31–4(a) (West 2006).
    As he did in the appellate court, defendant contends that the State
    failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of obstructing
    justice because he never concealed the crack pipe and push rod. To
    address this argument we must first determine the meaning of the
    word “conceal” as it is used in the obstructing justice statute.
    The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give
    effect to the legislature’s intent. Abruzzo v. City of Park Ridge, 
    231 Ill. 2d 324
    , 332 (2008). The legislature’s intent is best indicated by
    giving the statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning. 
    Id. To determine
    the plain meaning, we must consider the statute in its
    entirety and be mindful of the subject it addresses. Orlak v. Loyola
    University Health System, 
    228 Ill. 2d 1
    , 8 (2007). Our review on this
    issue is de novo. 
    Abruzzo, 231 Ill. 2d at 332
    .
    The obstructing justice statute does not define the word
    “conceal.” When a statutory term is undefined, it is appropriate to
    employ a dictionary definition to ascertain its meaning. See Landis v.
    Marc Realty, L.L.C., 
    235 Ill. 2d 1
    , 11 (2009). The obstructing justice
    statute was adopted in 1961. See 1961 Ill. Laws 1983, 2039 §31–4
    (eff. Jan. 1, 1962). Webster’s dictionary from that time contains two
    definitions of the word “conceal.” The first definition states: “1 : to
    prevent disclosure or recognition of : avoid revelation of : refrain
    from revealing : withhold knowledge of : draw attention from : treat
    so as to be unnoticed ***.” Webster’s Third New International
    Dictionary 469 (1961). The second definition states: “2 : to place out
    of sight : withdraw from being observed : shield from vision or notice
    -4-
    ***.” 
    Id. Before this
    court, defendant relies primarily on the first definition
    of the word “conceal.” Defendant contends he did not “withhold
    knowledge” of the crack pipe and push rod from the police officers.
    To the contrary, defendant emphasizes that he was in full view of the
    police officers at all times and that “[t]he officers were in no doubt
    that [defendant] had thrown contraband–or where.” Thus, in
    defendant’s view, because both the existence and location of the
    evidence were fully known to the officers the evidence was not
    concealed. See also, e.g., People v. Mulcahey, 
    72 Ill. 2d 282
    , 285
    (1978) (noting that something may be secreted or concealed from
    others when it is kept from their knowledge).
    The State, however, stresses the second meaning of the word
    “conceal.” According to the State, by throwing the evidence over the
    fence, defendant placed it “out of sight” of the police officers. The
    State does not dispute that the officers knew defendant had thrown
    the contraband, nor does the State dispute that the officers were able
    to recover it in a matter of seconds. However, the State contends that
    the “word ‘conceals’ merely conveys that something has been hidden,
    not that it will remain hidden forever.” Thus, in the State’s view,
    defendant concealed the crack pipe and push rod and, therefore, was
    properly found guilty of obstructing justice. We disagree.
    Courts have repeatedly rejected the proposition that temporarily
    removing contraband from the sight of police officers during a pursuit
    or arrest is sufficient, by itself, to constitute concealment for purposes
    of obstructing justice or tampering with evidence statutes. For
    example, in In re M.F., 
    315 Ill. App. 3d 641
    (2000), the defendant
    was standing on a landing or portion of roof over the entrance to an
    apartment building. A police officer was standing on the sidewalk,
    approximately 30 feet away. As the officer watched, the defendant
    twice reached into his pocket and made a throwing motion toward the
    street behind the officer. The police officer’s flashlight was shining
    on the defendant’s face and person but the officer did not see what the
    defendant had in his hands. After the defendant was apprehended by
    other police officers, the officer on the sidewalk looked in the
    direction the defendant had thrown the objects. In a matter of
    seconds, he found three bags containing cocaine, located
    approximately 10 feet away. 
    Id. at 643-44.
    -5-
    Although the defendant had placed the cocaine out of sight of the
    police officer, the appellate court determined that the drugs had not
    been concealed within the meaning of the obstructing justice statute.
    In its analysis, the appellate court reviewed numerous decisions from
    other jurisdictions and stated:
    “the clear weight of authority from other states concludes that
    where a defendant merely drops, throws down, or abandons
    drugs in the vicinity of the defendant and in the presence and
    view of the police, this conduct does not constitute
    concealment that will support an evidence–tampering or
    obstruction charge, or a conviction that is additional to and
    separate from the ongoing possessory offense.” 
    Id. at 650.
    The appellate court concluded:
    “even though respondent may have intended to prevent the
    apprehension or obstruct the prosecution of himself for the
    possession charge, throwing the drugs to the ground was not
    an act of concealment that will sustain the additional
    obstructing justice offense.” 
    Id. A similar
    result was reached by the Supreme Court of
    Pennsylvania in Commonwealth v. Delgado, 
    679 A.2d 223
    (Pa.
    1996). In that case, the defendant threw a bag of cocaine onto the roof
    of a garage while being pursued by police. Although the drugs were
    out of sight while on the roof, the court determined that they had not
    been concealed, stating:
    “[The] act of discarding contraband in plain view of the
    police does not rise to a level of conduct that constitutes the
    destruction or concealment of evidence as contemplated by
    the statute. The act of throwing the bag of cocaine while being
    chased by the police was nothing more than an abandonment
    of the evidence.” 
    Id. at 594.
    See also, e.g., McKinney v. State, 
    640 So. 2d 1183
    , 1185 (Fla. Dist.
    Ct. App. 1994) (“a brief interruption of a police officer’s visual
    contact with physical evidence that is on or near one’s body is not
    sufficient to constitute concealment”); Harris v. State, 
    991 A.2d 1135
    , 1140 (Del. 2010) (“Whether the defendant briefly hides
    evidence on a rooftop or in his mouth, if the police perceive the act
    of concealment and could immediately retrieve the evidence, the
    -6-
    defendant has failed to ‘suppress’ evidence ***.”).
    Courts have consistently rejected the idea that placing contraband
    out of sight during an arrest or pursuit is sufficient, in itself, to
    constitute concealment because such a legal principle leads to harsh
    and absurd results that cannot reasonably be within the ambit of
    legislative intent. For example, in State v. Fuqua, 
    696 A.2d 44
    (N.J.
    Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997), the defendant was searched at police
    headquarters and a package of cocaine was discovered in his socks.
    The court concluded that the drugs were not concealed, explaining:
    “Under what appears to be the State’s theory, defendant
    would have been required to have the cocaine in plain view in
    order to avoid committing this crime because, by placing the
    cocaine in his socks, defendant allegedly committed a
    separate indictable offense. This is difficult to fathom. We
    assume that under the State’s theory, the same conviction
    would be proper if the cocaine had been in defendant’s
    pocket, or even in his briefcase. If the State is correct, all
    illegal substances, weapons, and even illicit reading material,
    would be required to be carried in plain view or else the
    possessor could be convicted of a third- or fourth-degree
    crime or of a disorderly persons offense, in addition to any
    other substantive offense.” 
    Id. at 47.
         Similar reasoning was adopted in Vigue v. State, 
    987 P.2d 204
    (Alaska App. 1999). In that case, the defendant made a shaking
    motion that looked as if he had dropped something while approaching
    a police officer. The officer could not see what, if anything, had fallen
    to the ground. After the defendant was restrained, the officer walked
    to where defendant had made the motion and found five rocks of
    crack cocaine.
    The court concluded that the defendant had not concealed the
    drugs. In so doing, the court noted the absurd results that follow from
    holding that any time contraband is placed out of sight it is legally
    “concealed.” The court observed, for example, that persons under the
    age of 21 who smoke cigarettes (a violation punishable only by a fine)
    would be subject to felony convictions and penalties if they “hid
    cigarettes in a pocket or purse when police officers approached,” and
    “minor possessory offenses would often be converted to felonies with
    little reason.” 
    Id. at 211.
    See also, e.g., 
    McKinney, 640 So. 2d at 1185
    -7-
    (noting that it was “doubtful” the legislature intended a tampering
    with evidence statute to be used to prosecute persons for concealing
    drugs during an arrest).
    We agree with the foregoing authorities. To construe the word
    “conceal” as the State suggests would mean that essentially every
    possessory offense where the contraband is not in plain view would
    also constitute the felony offense of obstructing justice. We do not
    believe the legislature intended such a result. See, e.g., 
    Landis, 235 Ill. 2d at 12
    (we presume the legislature did not intend absurd
    consequences).
    The State, however, counters by pointing to cases such as People
    v. Brake, 
    336 Ill. App. 3d 464
    (2003). In Brake, a police officer
    observed a tan bag in a defendant’s mouth during an arrest. The
    defendant swallowed the bag despite the officer’s attempt to stop him
    from doing so. An ambulance was summoned and defendant was
    transported to a hospital. The hospital staff introduced charcoal to
    prevent the contents defendant had swallowed from being absorbed
    into his system, and the defendant vomited. The bag, which contained
    controlled substances, was recovered by police. 
    Id. at 465.
         On appeal, the appellate court noted that the sole issue before it
    was whether the defendant “was proved guilty beyond a reasonable
    doubt of the offense of obstructing justice based on his concealment
    of the tan bag containing a controlled substance.” 
    Id. at 466.
    The
    appellate court expressly rejected the defendant’s argument that
    concealment was based on what the police officer knew and that he
    “could not conceal the bag where the officer was already aware of it
    and defendant’s actions were undertaken in the officer’s presence.”
    
    Id. at 467.
    The appellate court upheld the defendant’s conviction for
    obstructing justice, stating
    “We are persuaded that there is a distinction between
    throwing evidence away from the person, as in M.F., and
    swallowing evidence in the hopes that it will go unrecovered.
    Such conduct constitutes an attempt to alter, conceal, or
    destroy the evidence and will support a charge and conviction
    of obstructing justice.” 
    Id. at 468.
         In the State’s view, in upholding the defendant’s conviction, the
    appellate court in Brake determined that the bag of drugs was
    -8-
    concealed, and thus that defendant’s conduct fell within the
    obstructing justice statute, because the bag was out of sight of the
    officer. We think it evident, however, that what compelled the result
    in Brake, and other similar cases, was not simply the fact that the
    drugs were out of sight of the police officer, but that the defendant
    had, in fact, materially impeded the officer’s investigation. This
    reading is consistent with the purpose of the statute.
    The subject addressed by section 31–4 is “obstructing justice.”
    Obstruction of justice is an attempt to interfere with the
    administration of the courts, the judicial system, or law enforcement
    agencies. “The phrase ‘obstructing justice’ as used in connection with
    offenses arising out of such conduct means impeding or obstructing
    those who seek justice in a court or those who have duties or powers
    of administering justice in courts.” 67 C.J.S. Obstructing Justice §1,
    at 67 (2002). Thus, in enacting section 31–4, the legislature intended
    to criminalize behavior that actually interferes with the administration
    of justice, i.e., conduct that “obstructs prosecution or defense of any
    person.”
    The facts of Brake are not before us and we express no opinion on
    the correctness of that decision. However, we have no disagreement
    with the proposition that a defendant who places evidence out of sight
    during an arrest or pursuit has “concealed” the evidence for purposes
    of the obstructing justice statute if, in doing so, the defendant actually
    interferes with the administration of justice, i.e., materially impedes
    the police officers’ investigation. This idea has been expressed by
    other authorities. See, e.g., Anderson v. State, 
    123 P.3d 1110
    , 1119
    (Alaska App. 2005) (“[t]he test appears to be whether the defendant
    disposed of the evidence in a manner that destroyed it or that made its
    recovery substantially more difficult or impossible”); 
    Harris, 991 A.2d at 1138
    (no concealment where contraband is “immediately
    retrievable”); 18 U.S.C.S. app. §3C1.1 (2010) (under federal
    sentencing guidelines, attempting to swallow or throw away a
    controlled substance is not, standing alone, sufficient to warrant an
    adjustment for obstruction unless it results in a “material hindrance”
    to the official investigation).
    In the case at bar, defendant threw the crack pipe and push rod
    over a fence, where they landed approximately 10 feet away. The
    police officers saw him throw the items and were able to walk around
    -9-
    the fence and recover them within 20 seconds. Although the items
    were briefly out of the officers’ sight, defendant did not materially
    impede the officers’ investigation. Accordingly, defendant did not
    “conceal” the crack pipe and push rod within the meaning of the
    obstructing justice statute.
    In upholding defendant’s conviction, the appellate court below
    also offered the following:
    “Defendant did not merely drop the evidence along his flight
    path, but threw it over a six-foot, wooden privacy fence.
    Defendant could have reasonably anticipated that the police
    may not see him throw the evidence over the fence.
    Fortunately for the police, the area where defendant threw the
    evidence happened to be a well-lit, empty parking lot, making
    retrieval of the evidence possible.
    For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s affirmative act
    constitutes concealment of the evidence under the
    obstruction-of-justice 
    statute.” 395 Ill. App. 3d at 567
    .
    As defendant points out, this reasoning is unpersuasive. Under the
    appellate court’s logic, the offense of obstructing justice would be
    established where the State proves only that a defendant “anticipated”
    the ability to conceal an item–not that he actually concealed anything.
    In other words, the appellate court’s reasoning eliminates the actus
    reus from the obstructing justice statute. We decline to adopt this
    interpretation of the statute.
    Conclusion
    Because defendant did not “conceal” the crack pipe and push rod
    within the meaning of the obstructing justice statute, the State failed
    to prove him guilty of that offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Accordingly, the judgments of the appellate and circuit courts are
    reversed.
    Appellate court judgment reversed;
    circuit court judgment reversed.
    -10-
    JUSTICE FREEMAN, specially concurring:
    I agree that materiality is a necessary component of Illinois’
    obstructing justice statute (720 ILCS 5/31–4(a) (West 2006)). As
    today’s opinion makes clear, a defendant who places evidence out of
    sight during an arrest or pursuit has “concealed” the evidence for
    purposes of the obstructing justice statute if, in doing so, he
    “materially impedes” a police investigation. Slip op. at 9. I write
    separately to emphasize that this construction of the statute conforms
    with the intent of the legislature.
    The court correctly notes the importance of In re M.F., 315 Ill.
    App. 3d 641 (2000), and People v. Brake, 
    336 Ill. App. 3d 464
    (2003), in resolving the issue presented. Slip op. at 5-6, 8-9.
    In M.F., the defendant was standing on the front landing or roof
    over the entrance to a building when he threw bags of drugs down
    from the landing and onto the ground in the vicinity of an officer who
    was shining a flashlight on the defendant, saw his conduct, and
    recovered the drugs within seconds. The appellate court reversed the
    defendant’s conviction for obstructing justice, noting: “Under the
    circumstances, it does not appear that this act was likely to either
    destroy the evidence or make recovery less likely.” M.F., 315 Ill.
    App. 3d at 650.
    In Brake, where the court upheld the defendant’s conviction for
    obstructing justice, a police officer observed a bag in the defendant’s
    mouth during an arrest, and the defendant swallowed it. The
    defendant was transported to a hospital, where the bag, which
    contained controlled substances, was recovered by police. On appeal,
    the appellate court rejected the defendant’s argument that his case
    was analogous to M.F. The court stated:
    “We are persuaded that there is a distinction between
    throwing evidence away from the person, as in M.F., and
    swallowing evidence in the hopes that it will go unrecovered.
    Such conduct constitutes an attempt to alter, conceal, or
    destroy the evidence and will support a charge and conviction
    of obstructing justice.” 
    Brake, 336 Ill. App. 3d at 468
    .
    M.F. and Brake stand for the notion that materiality is an element
    of the obstructing justice statute. It is significant, in my view, that the
    -11-
    General Assembly has not seen fit to change section 31–4(a) in the
    time since these cases were decided. Where the legislature chooses
    not to amend terms of a statute after judicial construction, it is
    presumed that it has acquiesced in the court’s statement of legislative
    intent. R.D. Masonry, Inc., v. Industrial Comm’n, 
    215 Ill. 2d 397
    , 404
    (2005). The materiality component of the obstructing justice statute
    thus has been part of Illinois jurisprudence for at least eight years,
    since Brake was decided.
    Notwithstanding the foregoing, the dissent argues the obstructing
    justice statute “does not require, as the majority finds, that a
    defendant actually ‘interfere[ ] with the administration of justice, i.e.,
    materially impede[ ] the police officers’ investigation.’ ” Slip op. at
    18 (Thomas, J., dissenting, joined by Garman and Karmeier, JJ.). The
    dissent contends, in addition, that neither M.F. nor Brake precludes
    defendant’s conviction, and “there was thus no need for a legislative
    change to render culpable the sort of conduct that occurred in this
    case.” 
    Id. at 19.
         With regard to M.F., the dissent insists it is distinguishable from
    the case at bar, noting that the appellate court majority below took
    this same view. 
    Id. However, the
    dissenting justice below believed
    the two cases were “virtually 
    indistinguishable.” 395 Ill. App. 3d at 567
    (Pope, J. dissenting).
    “The Second District found M.F.’s conduct did not
    constitute obstructing justice based on concealment of
    evidence, because he threw the drugs from a rooftop in the
    vicinity of a police officer and the drugs were recovered
    within seconds. *** In the case sub judice, the officers were
    only a short distance behind defendant, saw him throw the
    objects, and recovered the same, in an open, well-lit area
    within seconds. Defendant simply did not conceal 
    anything.” 395 Ill. App. 3d at 567-68
    (Pope, J., dissenting).
    I agree in that I believe the two cases are “virtually indistinguishable.”
    With regard to Brake, the dissenting justices argue it is
    distinguishable from the case at bar and M.F. Slip op. at 20 (Thomas,
    J., dissenting, joined by Garman and Karmeier, JJ.). I agree. That is,
    indeed, my point. As the court in Brake emphasized, there is a
    distinction between “throwing evidence away from the person, as in
    -12-
    M.F., and swallowing evidence in the hopes that it will go
    unrecovered.” 
    Brake, 336 Ill. App. 3d at 468
    . The court continued:
    “Such conduct constitutes an attempt to alter, conceal, or destroy the
    evidence and will support a charge and conviction of obstructing
    justice.” 
    Brake, 336 Ill. App. 3d at 468
    .
    M.F. is “virtually indistinguishable” from the case at bar (395 Ill.
    App. 3d at 567 (Pope, J., dissenting)) but is, as the dissent here states,
    distinguishable from Brake. The difference between them is that, in
    M.F., as in the case at bar, the conduct at issue was not “likely to
    either destroy the evidence or make recovery less likely” 
    (M.F., 315 Ill. App. 3d at 650
    ) and thus did not materially impede the
    investigation. In Brake, by contrast, the conduct in
    question–swallowing the evidence–constituted “an attempt to alter,
    conceal, or destroy the evidence” (
    Brake, 336 Ill. App. 3d at 468
    ) and
    did, in fact, materially impede the investigation. Under M.F. and
    Brake, materiality is thus an element of the obstructing justice statute.
    Thus, I continue to believe that the presumption of legislative
    acquiescence plays an important role in resolving this question of
    statutory construction. The fact that the legislature has not changed
    the statute indicates to me, at least, that it agrees with the reasoning
    contained in the authority cited in the court’s opinion today.
    For these reasons and those set forth in the court’s opinion, I agree
    that defendant’s conviction must be reversed.
    JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting:
    The majority states that it has no quarrel with the proposition that
    a defendant who places physical evidence out of the sight of an
    officer during an arrest or pursuit is guilty of violating the obstruction
    of justice statute. But the majority then tacks on an additional
    requirement not found in the plain language of the statute, by
    requiring that a defendant must ultimately succeed in “materially
    imped[ing] the police officers’ investigation.” Slip op. at 9. Because
    the plain and unambiguous language of the statute does not brook the
    addition of this extra element, I respectfully dissent.
    The facts of this case are not in dispute. On the night of March 24,
    2006, Decatur police officer Chad Larner responded to a report of a
    -13-
    theft at a local gas station. Larner left the scene at the gas station to
    look for the suspect who was described as a thin, clean-shaven black
    male wearing nice slacks and dressy-casual clothing. A block away
    from the gas station, Officer Larner spotted defendant, who matched
    the description of the suspect. Larner stopped defendant in a nearby
    parking lot and asked for identification. Defendant identified himself,
    and Decatur police officer Kathleen Romer soon arrived at the scene
    as backup.
    Defendant and the officers continued talking, but defendant began
    acting strangely. Defendant jumped around, fidgeted nervously, and
    threatened to urinate on the squad car. The officers communicated
    defendant’s name via radio to their dispatcher. After a few moments,
    the dispatcher radioed back. At that point, defendant fled into the
    night through a parking lot and down an alley. The officers gave
    chase down the alley, whereupon they observed defendant, while
    running, reach into his pocket, take out a thin, rod-like object, and
    throw it over a six-foot high wooden privacy fence. The tallest of the
    two officers was only 5 foot 11 inches. And once the item was
    thrown, neither officer had sight of it until it was later recovered. The
    pursuit of defendant continued a short distance longer. Officer Romer
    then drew her Taser and ordered defendant to stop. Defendant finally
    complied by turning around and lying on the ground. The officers
    then handcuffed and arrested him.
    Officer Larner went around to the other side of the fence to search
    for the object defendant had thrown. There, Larner saw a few feet of
    landscaping next to the fence, with the rest of the area comprised of
    an empty asphalt or concrete parking lot. The parking lot near the
    street where the officers first encountered defendant was well lit, but
    it was darker further down the alley where defendant ran. Officer
    Larner, however, was quickly able to find a thin, silver rod with a
    rubber tip on one end and severe burn marks on the other, as well as
    a second smaller rod. Based on their training and experience, both
    Officers Larner and Romer recognized the objects recovered as a
    crack pipe and push rod. A push rod is a tool used to pack drugs into
    a crack pipe. The officers then continued searching the parking lot for
    any other items that might have been discarded by defendant, but they
    found nothing else.
    After hearing the foregoing evidence, the jury convicted
    -14-
    defendant of one count of obstructing justice. Defendant filed a
    posttrial motion, arguing that based on In re M.F., 
    315 Ill. App. 3d 641
    (2000), he merely abandoned the evidence and did not “conceal”
    it, as required under section 31–4(a) of the Criminal Code of 1961,
    the obstructing justice statute. The circuit court rejected this argument
    and denied defendant’s posttrial motion. A majority of the appellate
    court affirmed, rejecting defendant’s claim that throwing drug
    paraphernalia over a six-foot wooden privacy fence did not conceal
    evidence. 
    395 Ill. App. 3d 560
    , 563-64.
    This case presents a question of statutory interpretation, which
    this court reviews de novo. People v. Brooks, 
    221 Ill. 2d 381
    , 388
    (2006). This court’s primary objective when undertaking to interpret
    a statute is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. People v.
    Phelps, 
    211 Ill. 2d 1
    , 15 (2004). The best indicator of that intent is the
    language of the statute itself–if the statute’s language is unambiguous,
    then it is should be applied as written without using aids of statutory
    construction. People v. Grever, 
    222 Ill. 2d 321
    , 328-29 (2006).
    Moreover, this court will not depart from the plain meaning of a
    statute by reading into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions that
    conflict with the express legislative intent. Hawes v. Luhr Brothers,
    Inc., 
    212 Ill. 2d 93
    , 105 (2004).
    The statute at issue in this case provides in relevant part that “[a]
    person obstructs justice when, with intent to prevent the apprehension
    or obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly
    *** conceals *** physical evidence ***.” (Emphasis added.) 720
    ILCS 5/31–4(a) (West 2008). Thus, the crime of obstructing justice
    has two elements: (1) intent to prevent or obstruct apprehension or
    prosecution; and (2) concealment. Because defendant did both, I
    would affirm his conviction. The statute does not require, as the
    majority finds, that a defendant actually “interfere[ ] with the
    administration of justice, i.e., materially impede[ ] the police officers’
    investigation.” See slip op. at 9.
    Defendant does not dispute that when he ran from police and
    threw his crack pipe and push rod over the privacy fence, he intended
    to obstruct his own apprehension and prosecution. See, e.g., State v.
    Lasu, 
    768 N.W.2d 447
    , 451 (Neb. 2009) (“It is reasonable to infer
    that [the defendant] threw away his marijuana because he was afraid
    of being arrested and searched–in fact, it is hard to imagine another
    -15-
    reasonable explanation for his actions.”). Thus, the only question in
    this case is whether defendant “concealed” evidence as required by
    section 31–4(a).
    Neither the word “conceal” nor “concealment” is defined in the
    Criminal Code of 1961. See 720 ILCS 5/1–1 et seq. (West 2008). It
    is well established that if a term is not specifically defined in a statute
    indicating a contrary legislative intent, the term must be given its
    ordinary and popularly understood meaning. See, e.g., People v.
    Bailey, 
    167 Ill. 2d 210
    , 229 (1995); People v. Christopherson, 377 Ill.
    App. 3d 752, 753-54 (2007). The primary and popularly understood
    dictionary definition of “conceal” is “to hide; withdraw or remove
    from observation; cover or keep from sight: He concealed the gun
    under his coat.” The Random House Dictionary of the English
    Language 303 (Unabridged ed. 1983). Similarly, the dictionary
    definition of “concealment” is “an act by which one prevents or
    hinders the discovery of something *** the act of removing from
    sight or notice; hiding.” Black’s Law Dictionary 306 (8th ed. 2004).
    Applying the above-noted definitions to the facts of this case
    shows that the element of concealment was clearly established.
    Defendant, who was being questioned by police officers, suddenly
    sprinted away from them, at night, and threw drug paraphernalia over
    a six-foot, wooden fence. In other words, defendant “withdr[e]w or
    remove[d] from observation” and “[kept] from sight” the evidence in
    question. Or applying the Black’s Law Dictionary definition,
    defendant “hinder[ed] the discovery of something,” “removed” the
    evidence “from sight or notice,” and “hid[ ]” it from view. In short,
    defendant deliberately removed evidence from the officers’ sight in
    a way that made it less likely to be found. Thus, because defendant
    “concealed” evidence in the ordinary sense of the word, he obstructed
    justice.
    The majority’s conclusion that a defendant must ultimately
    succeed in either destroying the evidence or “materially impeding the
    police officers’ investigation” is not supported by the text of the
    statute and rests on a small amount of poorly reasoned authority.
    There is nothing in the common definition of “conceal” that requires
    that an item be permanently removed from sight or hidden. It is
    enough that the evidence is removed from sight or hidden, even if
    only for a short time before it is found or located. Looking at whether
    -16-
    the evidence was actually recovered–or at how easily it was
    recovered–improperly shifts the statutory inquiry away from its
    rightful focus on defendant’s actions at the time of the crime onto
    how quickly and competently police reacted to defendant’s actions
    after the concealment had been completed. See, e.g., Brogan v.
    United States, 
    522 U.S. 398
    (1998); People v. Manning, 
    334 Ill. App. 3d
    882 (2002).
    The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brogan is
    instructive. There, the defendant argued that he could not be
    convicted of making a false statement to federal investigators because
    the investigators knew his statements were false when made. Thus,
    the defendant reasoned, because the officers were not actually
    deceived by the false statements, he did not commit a crime.
    Defendant also argued that the statute should be interpreted more
    narrowly than its plain language because the evil to be prevented was
    the “perversion of governmental functions.” 
    Brogan, 522 U.S. at 401
    -
    02. The Supreme Court soundly rejected both contentions: “It could
    be argued, perhaps, that a disbelieved falsehood does not pervert an
    investigation. But making the existence of this crime turn upon the
    credulousness of the federal investigator (or the persuasiveness of the
    liar) would be exceedingly strange; such a defense to the analogous
    crime of perjury is certainly unheard of.” (Emphasis in original.)
    
    Brogan, 522 U.S. at 402
    , 139 L. Ed. 2d at 
    836, 118 S. Ct. at 809
    . The
    Court continued by stating that “it is not, and cannot be, our practice
    to restrict the unqualified language of a statute to the particular evil
    that Congress was trying to remedy–even assuming that it is possible
    to identify that evil from something other than the text of the statute
    itself.” 
    Brogan, 522 U.S. at 403
    .
    The decision of our appellate court in Manning is similarly
    instructive. The defendant in that case argued that he had not
    “concealed” his daughter from his spouse for 15 days–as required by
    the child abduction statute (720 ILCS 5/10–5(b)(6) (West
    2000))–because his wife was able to discover the daughter’s location
    from other sources. Manning, 
    334 Ill. App. 3d
    at 887, 889. The court
    rejected that argument, stating that “[i]n determining whether a
    defendant committed a criminal act, the focus must be on the
    defendant’s state of mind.” (Emphasis added.) Manning, 
    334 Ill. App. 3d
    at 887. The court then employed the common dictionary definition
    -17-
    of “conceal” and determined that the jury reasonably concluded that
    the defendant concealed his daughter from his wife for 15 days, even
    though the defendant’s wife may have had actual knowledge of her
    daughter’s whereabouts during several of those days. Manning, 
    334 Ill. App. 3d
    at 889.
    Here, just as the defendants did in Brogan and Manning,
    defendant seeks to make his conviction turn on the cognizance of
    others. But this is not the proper inquiry. As noted above, defendant
    “concealed” evidence within the plain and ordinary meaning of that
    term and was ultimately caught doing it. The fact that he did not
    conceal the evidence permanently or very well–and that police acted
    quickly to uncover his concealment–should have no bearing on
    whether defendant committed the crime in the first instance.
    The majority’s claim that the actus reus of the crime was never
    accomplished in this case rests on a faulty construction of what it
    means to “conceal” evidence within the meaning of the statute. As I
    have already explained, defendant committed the completed act of
    concealment when he in fact concealed the evidence by tossing it out
    of sight over a privacy fence as he fled from police. Just as the crime
    of perjury does not require as part of the actus reus that others
    actually be deceived, the present crime did not require that the
    offender ultimately be successful in materially impeding the officers’
    investigation, as the majority believes. Moreover, the majority’s
    standard appears to be unworkable because it does not explain at what
    point an investigation would be impeded. According to the majority,
    the amount of time that the evidence in this case was concealed from
    officers is too short to support a conviction. But the majority never
    explains what, if any, amount of time from the act of placing evidence
    out-of-sight until its discovery would support a conviction. Would the
    majority consider a two-minute search for evidence too short to
    support a finding that an investigation was “materially impeded,” but
    affirm a conviction if the evidence were only finally discovered after
    four days? The answers are unclear under the standard proposed by
    the majority. But such difficult line drawing would be entirely
    unnecessary under a plain-text reading of the statute, as any
    affirmative act of concealment combined with the requisite intent
    would support a conviction.
    The majority opines that under the State’s plain-text reading of
    -18-
    the statute, “essentially every possessory offense where the
    contraband is not in plain view would also constitute the felony
    offense of obstructing justice.” Slip op. at 8. The majority is
    apparently concerned that persons who carry illegal items in their
    pockets, purses or briefcases would be guilty of obstructing justice
    under a plain reading of the statute. But I believe that the majority’s
    fears are unfounded, as it is unlikely that the intent element of the
    offense could be satisfied by these routine methods of carrying items.
    I also believe that what happened in the present case can be easily
    distinguished from the situation involving a mere possessory offense.
    It could be said that carrying an illegal item on one’s person is not an
    affirmative act that constitutes concealment, and given that carrying
    something in one’s pocket or handbag is a convenient way to carry
    any item, there is no evidence of the “intent to prevent the
    apprehension or obstruct the prosecution” that the statute requires.
    See 720 ILCS 5/31–4(a) (West 2008).
    The majority’s concerns are also irrelevant to this case. Defendant
    was not convicted of obstruction of justice because he put a crack
    pipe in his pocket or briefcase before going out into the world. Nor
    did he simply panic and run at the first sight of police. Rather, after
    talking with police officers for several minutes while they conducted
    their investigation, defendant deliberately sprinted away from them,
    at night, and disposed of his crack pipe by pitching it over a wooden,
    privacy fence. This was not an act of continuing possession; it was a
    separate, intentional act that had no purpose other than to thwart a
    specific, ongoing investigation.
    Furthermore, even accepting as proper a rule that a defendant who
    abandons contraband immediately upon seeing a police officer does
    not conceal it, such a rule would not be availing to defendant in this
    case. Whatever else the obstruction of justice statute proscribes, it
    must at least prohibit a defendant from taking the sort of affirmative,
    evasive steps that defendant took here to conceal evidence of his
    crimes once a police investigation was in process.
    For that reason, the special concurrence is mistaken in its
    conclusion that the principle of legislative acquiescence has an
    “important role” in resolving the issue of statutory construction
    involved in this particular case. See slip op. at 12 (Freeman, J.,
    specially concurring). The special concurrence claims that the fact
    -19-
    that the legislature has not amended the statute after the appellate
    court’s opinions in M.F. and People v. Brake, 
    336 Ill. App. 3d 464
    (2003), precludes defendant’s conviction in the present case. But I do
    not believe that the appellate court’s holdings in those cases precludes
    defendant’s conviction here, and there was thus no need for a
    legislative change to render culpable the sort of conduct that occurred
    in this case.
    In M.F., police spotted the defendant on the roof over an entrance
    to a building where they were executing a search warrant. An officer
    told the defendant not to move while shining a flashlight on the
    defendant. The defendant remained in the same spot, but twice
    reached into his pocket and threw baggies of cocaine toward the
    officer within 10 feet of him. It is not entirely clear whether the
    officer ever lost sight of the items tossed in his direction. At any rate,
    he recovered them within seconds. After discussing decisions from
    other jurisdictions, the appellate court in M.F. concluded that where
    a defendant abandons evidence by dropping it or throwing it to the
    ground in the presence and view of police, this conduct does not
    constitute concealment that will support a conviction under the
    obstruction statute. 
    M.F., 315 Ill. App. 3d at 650
    . Notably, M.F. did
    not hold that materially impeding the police officers’ investigation is
    a necessary element of the obstruction statute. Additionally, it must
    be emphasized that M.F. carefully limited its holding to the specific
    circumstances of that case. See 
    M.F., 315 Ill. App. 3d at 650
    .
    The present case is of course distinguishable on the facts from
    M.F., and the holding in M.F. does not preclude a conviction here.
    Indeed, the trial judge and two justices of the appellate court found
    M.F. clearly distinguishable from the present case. In that regard, the
    appellate court in this case stated as follows:
    “[I]n the case sub judice, defendant did not merely abandon
    the evidence by throwing it to the ground in the vicinity and
    view of the police officer who was shining a flashlight on
    defendant. Here, defendant took the more affirmative act of
    throwing the evidence over a privacy fence and out of the
    view of the police while defendant was fleeing from the
    police down an alley at 
    night.” 395 Ill. App. 3d at 565
    .
    The special concurrence’s reliance upon Brake for a legislative
    acquiescence analysis is even more problematic. Brake did not
    -20-
    involve a case where the defendant fled from police and threw
    evidence out of sight of police. Instead, it considered only whether a
    defendant’s swallowing of evidence in the immediate presence of an
    arresting officer, and where the evidence was in fact recovered, will
    support an obstruction of justice charge and conviction. Brake
    answered the question in the affirmative. 
    Brake, 336 Ill. App. 3d at 468
    . In so doing, Brake noted and rejected the defendant’s attempt to
    analogize his case to M.F. Brake explained that M.F. reasoned “that
    throwing ‘bags of drugs down from the landing and onto the ground
    in the vicinity of and in view of the police officer who was shining a
    flashlight on respondent, saw his conduct, and recovered the drugs
    within seconds of the act’ was not ‘likely to either destroy the
    evidence or make recovery less likely.’ ” 
    Brake, 336 Ill. App. 3d at 467
    (quoting 
    M.F., 315 Ill. App. 3d at 650
    ). Brake continued by
    noting that M.F. had “distinguished its facts from precisely the
    situation in this case, where a defendant swallowed the evidence, and
    noted that such conduct may support evidence tampering sufficient to
    support a conviction.” 
    Brake, 336 Ill. App. 3d at 467
    . Nothing in
    Brake can be interpreted as purporting to fashion a requirement that
    a defendant materially impede an investigation to support a
    conviction. The special concurrence mistakenly assumes that the
    requirement of M.F.–that the conduct of the defendant make
    “recovery less likely”–is the equivalent of the majority’s
    requirement–that the defendant “materially impede an investigation.”
    In my opinion, if evidence is less likely to be recovered as a result of
    certain actions of a defendant, it can still be likely to be recovered,
    albeit less likely than it was before the actions were taken. In the
    present case, defendant’s flight from police coupled with his tossing
    of the items in a dark alley over a six-foot privacy fence satisfied the
    M.F. “less likely” standard. In M.F., by contrast to the present case,
    the evidence was actually more likely to be recovered because of the
    defendant’s actions in that case where he tossed the items down in the
    direction of and in view of police and they were in fact recovered
    within seconds. It appears that the majority opinion does not simply
    adopt the “less likely” standard in this case because to do so would
    lead to a different result than the “materially impedes an
    investigation” standard that the majority actually adopts.
    The special concurrence makes two points to support its judicial
    -21-
    acquiescence theory, neither of which has much merit. First, the
    special concurrence argues that because the dissenting justice on the
    appellate court in this case found M.F. “virtually indistinguishable”
    from the present case (over the disagreement of the majority), M.F.
    is in fact “virtually indistinguishable.” See slip op. at 12 (Freeman, J.,
    specially concurring) 
    (citing 395 Ill. App. 3d at 567-68
    (Pope, J.,
    dissenting)). As I have already clearly explained above, however,
    M.F. is distinguishable from the present case and M.F. carefully
    limited its holding to the specific circumstances presented, and thus
    nothing more need be said on this point. Second, the special
    concurrence argues that it is “indeed, [its] point” that Brake is
    distinguishable from M.F. See 
    id. It is
    true that Brake is
    distinguishable from M.F., but I fail to see how this supports a
    judicial acquiescence theory. The statement in Brake that “ ‘[s]uch
    conduct, [i.e., swallowing evidence] “constitutes an attempt to alter,
    conceal, or destroy the evidence and will support a charge and
    conviction of obstructing justice’ ” (id. at 13 (quoting Brake, 336 Ill.
    App. 3d at 468)) makes perfect sense given the court’s holding
    affirming defendant’s conviction. The fact that Brake made a
    distinction between the throwing of evidence away under the facts in
    M.F. and the swallowing of evidence in the case before it did not and
    could not purport to set forth the parameters of what might constitute
    concealment in all the situations where evidence is tossed away from
    police, especially where, unlike M.F., the evidence is indisputably
    discarded out of sight. The fact that Brake found “throwing evidence
    away” distinguishable from swallowing evidence is thus
    unremarkable under the circumstance of that case where the court was
    being asked to analogize its case to the specific facts of M.F., a case
    where the appellate court clearly limited its holding to the specific
    circumstances before it.2 At any rate, any ruling in Brake that would
    2
    M.F. limited its holding as follows:
    “In the present case, we hold that the evidence of concealment was
    insufficient to sustain the convictions of obstruction of justice.
    Respondent threw bags of drugs down from a landing and onto the
    ground in the vicinity and in the view of the police officer who was
    shining a flashlight on respondent, saw his conduct, and recovered
    the drugs within seconds of the act. Under the circumstances, it
    -22-
    have claimed to reach facts not actually before it would have been
    mere dicta, which obviously would not bind the legislature on a
    judicial acquiescence theory.
    Given that neither the fact patterns nor the holdings of M.F. and
    Brake support the majority’s addition of the extra element to the
    statute of “materially imped[ing] the police officers’ investigation”
    (see slip op. at 9), the concept of legislative acquiescence relied upon
    by the special concurrence is not an appropriate aid in resolving the
    question of statutory construction before us in this case. However, in
    light of the majority’s holding today, I would urge the legislature to
    remedy the majority’s incorrect interpretation of the statute so that the
    statute can again be construed to prohibit the sort of affirmative act
    of concealment that occurred in the present case, where defendant
    fled from police officers down a dark alley and placed evidence out
    of their sight.
    The foreign-jurisdiction authority cited by the majority is not
    persuasive for a number of reasons. As stated earlier, I do not believe
    that the outcome of these cases should turn on whether others were
    actually fooled by a defendant’s subterfuge. Additionally, many of the
    cases cited can be distinguished from the present case on their facts.
    See, e.g., Harris v. State, 
    991 A.2d 1135
    , 1138 (Del. 2010) (the
    defendant was only successful in partially concealing the item of
    contraband from the officers view and it was “immediately
    retrievable”); Anderson v. State, 
    123 P.3d 1110
    , 1118 (Alaska App.
    2005) (it does not appear that the officers ever lost sight of the items
    the defendant tossed away: “Anderson’s act of tossing the handgun,
    magazine, and ammunition out of the car in the sight of the police did
    nothing to disguise the evidentiary value of these items.”); State v.
    Fuqua, 
    696 A.2d 44
    (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997) (defendant did
    not commit an affirmative act of concealment; rather, drugs were
    discovered on the defendant’s person during a police search).
    Finally, the majority does not discuss the cases that have reached
    does not appear that this act was likely to either destroy the
    evidence or make recovery less likely. Therefore, *** [the
    defendant’s act of] throwing drugs on the ground was not an act of
    concealment.” 
    M.F., 315 Ill. App. 3d at 650
    .
    -23-
    the contrary holding that an affirmative act of tossing evidence away
    to avoid apprehension or prosecution is sufficient to constitute the
    offense of tampering with evidence or obstruction of justice. See, e.g.,
    Pennewell v. State, 
    977 A.2d 800
    (Del. 2009) (reaffirmed earlier
    holding in Hunter, noting that it was “not a close case;” Hunter had
    affirmed tampering conviction where the defendant had tossed drugs
    out of car window while being pursued by, and in view of, police);
    Hunter v. State, 
    815 A.2d 730
    , 737 (Del. 2002) (affirmed tampering
    conviction as “not a close case” where the defendant pitched drugs
    out car window and they were “recovered almost immediately”);
    State v. Harley, 
    982 P.2d 1145
    (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (affirmed
    tampering conviction where the defendant tossed weapon out of
    window while being followed by police with lights and siren
    activated and police recovered the weapon near where it was tossed);
    State v. Jennings, 
    666 So. 2d 131
    , 133 (Fla. 1995) (tossing evidence
    away in the presence of police can “amount to tampering or
    concealing evidence”); Hayes v. State, 
    634 So. 2d 1153
    (Fla. Dist. Ct.
    App. 1994) (upheld tampering conviction where the defendant while
    fleeing police dropped baggie of cocaine into a drainage outlet, and
    the wet baggie was retrieved by police from the drainage system). The
    decision in Jennings is particularly persuasive. There, the Supreme
    Court of Florida overruled an earlier appellate court decision “to the
    extent it [could] be read to mean that tossing evidence away in the
    presence of a law enforcement officer does not, as a matter of law,
    constitute a violation of the [tampering with evidence] statute.” The
    Florida Supreme Court continued by noting: “Depending upon the
    circumstances, such an act could amount to tampering or concealing
    evidence. An affirmative act of throwing evidence away constitutes
    more than mere abandonment.” 
    Jennings, 666 So. 2d at 133
    .
    In sum, the cases that have affirmed convictions for tampering or
    obstruction when a defendant discards items out of sight while being
    pursued by police are more persuasive than the cases relied upon by
    the majority. Moreover, the majority’s interpretation of the statute is
    not consistent with its plain language. For all of the foregoing
    reasons, I would affirm defendant’s conviction for obstruction of
    justice.
    JUSTICES GARMAN and KARMEIER join in this dissent.
    -24-
    -25-