People v. Presa ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                          
    2014 IL App (3d) 130255
    Opinion filed December 18, 2014
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    IN THE
    APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
    THIRD DISTRICT
    A.D., 2014
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF                       )      Appeal from the Circuit Court
    ILLINOIS,                                        )      of the 12th Judicial Circuit,
    )      Will County, Illinois,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                       )
    )      Appeal No. 3-13-0255
    v.                                        )      Circuit No. 11-CM-3893
    )
    BRUNO PRESA,                                     )
    )      Honorable Carmen Goodman,
    Defendant-Appellant.                      )      Judge, Presiding.
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
    Justices Holdridge and Wright concurred in the judgment and opinion.
    OPINION
    ¶1          Defendant, Bruno Presa, was charged with one count of possession of syringes under
    section 1 of the Hypodermic Syringes and Needles Act (Act) (720 ILCS 635/1 (West 2010)),
    when he was found in possession of approximately 500 used and uncapped hypodermic syringes
    in a cardboard box in his bedroom. Defendant was a card-holding member of the Chicago
    Recovery Alliance (CRA), a "needle exchange" program that aims to slow the spread of human
    immunodeficiency virus (HIV) among intravenous drug users. At a bench trial, defendant
    argued that he met the statutory exemption for a person engaged in "scientific research," through
    his participation in CRA's program. See 720 ILCS 635/1(a) (West 2010). The court found
    defendant guilty. Defendant appeals, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty
    beyond a reasonable doubt. The State concedes, and we reverse.
    ¶2                                                FACTS
    ¶3          Defendant was charged by information with "Unlawful Possession of Hypodermic
    Syringe or Needle" under section 1 of the Act (720 ILCS 635/1 (West 2010)). The charging
    information alleged:
    "[D]efendant, knowingly and unlawfully had in his possession an
    instrument, namely a hypodermic syringe and needle, or any other
    instrument so adapted for the use of controlled substances by
    subcutaneous injection and the defendant was not in possession of
    such aforementioned instrument by reason of or during the course of
    his official duties, and the defendant was not in possession of such
    aforementioned instrument acting under the direction of a medical
    doctor, dentist or hospital supervisor ***."
    Section 1 reads:
    "(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), no person, not being ***
    a person engaged in chemical, clinical, pharmaceutical or other
    scientific research, shall have in his possession a hypodermic syringe,
    hypodermic needle, or any instrument adapted for the use of controlled
    substances or cannabis by subcutaneous injection.
    (b) A person who is at least 18 years of age may purchase from a
    pharmacy and have in his or her possession up to 20 hypodermic
    2
    syringes or needles." (Emphasis added.) 720 ILCS 635/1 (West
    2010).
    Section (b), along with the part of section (a) referencing it, was added by the legislature in 2003.
    Pub. Act 93-392 (eff. July 25, 2003). The amendment was characterized as a public health
    initiative, which, by "decriminaliz[ing] the possession of up to twenty sterile hypodermic needles
    and syringes," aimed to reduce the transmission of HIV and other diseases by intravenous drug
    users. 93d Ill. Gen. Assem., Senate Proceedings, March 24, 2003, at 78 (statements of Senator
    Trotter).
    ¶4             Defendant bonded out of jail on a $100 personal recognizance bail bond. His bail bond
    contract listed six conditions of bond, none of which mentioned drug screenings. Defendant
    entered a plea of not guilty at his arraignment, explaining that he was a member of "the needle
    exchange program."
    ¶5             At the first pretrial hearing, defendant appeared pro se. The court stated that "as a
    condition of your bond, you were to be drug tested today." Defendant said he was unaware of
    that requirement and had not yet been drug tested. Defendant requested that the court dismiss
    the charge because "I have a card for legal possession of what I got arrested for." The court
    stated, "That's probably a defense," but explained that defendant needed counsel and, first of all,
    needed to be drug tested. The court appointed a public defender and ordered defendant
    downstairs for a drug screening. The court explained, "I test everybody who has these type of
    cases."
    ¶6             On March 14, 2013, the case proceeded to a bench trial. Pretrial, the State stipulated to
    two defense exhibits. The first was a special order from the Chicago police department (CPD)
    regarding CRA. The special order stated that CRA personnel and participants in the needle
    3
    exchange program met the statutory exemption for scientific research under section 1 of the Act.
    The order directed CPD officers not to arrest CRA program participants for possession of
    hypodermic syringes. The second exhibit was a special order from the Joliet police department,
    directing its officers not to arrest participants of a similar needle exchange program for
    possession of syringes.
    ¶7            The defense called Dan Bigg, director of CRA. Bigg explained that CRA is a 21-year-
    old nonprofit organization that aims to study and reduce the spread of HIV and hepatitis B and C.
    When participants interact with CRA to receive services, CRA asks them questions that are
    recorded and used for research purposes. Its members are given coded identification cards;
    cardholder names are not collected or stored by CRA. Bigg testified that defendant had a valid
    CRA card and was considered a current participant in CRA's research program.
    ¶8            Gregg Scott testified that he is an associate professor of sociology at DePaul University
    who studies HIV and drug use. The data collected through CRA's questioning of participants is
    stored and analyzed at DePaul's science research center. On cross-examination, Scott stated that
    participants may take as many clean needles as they want, and there is no requirement that they
    must exchange dirty needles to receive clean ones. According to Scott, "putting limitations on
    the number of syringes actually contributes to the flourishing of HIV."
    ¶9            The court ultimately determined that defendant's CRA participant card did not in itself
    establish that defendant was a person engaged in scientific research under the Act. The court
    found defendant guilty.
    ¶ 10          The court asked whether the parties were ready to proceed to sentencing. Defense
    counsel requested a continuance to gather and prepare mitigating evidence. The court denied
    that request: "Okay. Well, this is a 2011 case. I will give you five minutes." The court
    4
    sentenced defendant to 90 days in jail, 24 months' conditional discharge, and fines and costs of
    $200. Defendant appeals.
    ¶ 11                                               ANALYSIS
    ¶ 12          On appeal, defendant, again, argues that because of his participation in CRA's program,
    he met the statutory exemption for a person engaged in scientific research. The State concedes
    that defendant's conviction must be reversed.
    ¶ 13          Under the statute, anyone 18 years of age or older may possess up to 20 needles. To
    legally possess more than 20 needles, the person or entity must meet one of the exemptions listed
    in subsection (a). In the present case, defendant claimed he met the exemption for "a person
    engaged in *** scientific research." 720 ILCS 635/1(a) (West 2010). The State conceded—and
    the evidence overwhelmingly established—that CRA was an entity engaged in scientific
    research. The legislature decided that it was sound public policy to allow the possession of up to
    20 syringes for anyone and more than 20 syringes for those engaged in scientific research. It is
    not the role of the courts to question that policy decision.
    ¶ 14          Clinical scientific research, by definition, requires not only scientific researchers, but also
    participants or patients. Dan Bigg, the director of CRA, testified that defendant possessed a valid
    CRA card; Bigg considered defendant a current participant in CRA's research program. On
    appeal, the State concedes that defendant was, for purposes of the Act, engaged in scientific
    research. No reasonable trier of fact could have found defendant guilty based upon the evidence
    presented at trial. The State confesses error. We reverse defendant's conviction.
    ¶ 15                                             CONCLUSION
    ¶ 16          For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Will County is reversed.
    ¶ 17          Reversed.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 3-13-0255

Filed Date: 12/18/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021