Matthew R. Leisten, Ogle County State’s Attorney’s Office, Oregon
815-732-1170 | E-mail Matthew R. Leisten
Illinois Supreme Court: Defendant’s Admission of No Concealed Carry License Sufficient for Firearm Charge Without Additional Evidence
In People v. Harvey, 2024 IL 129357, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the state was not required to present corroborating evidence of the defendant’s statement that he did not have a concealed carry license (CCL) in his trial for possessing a firearm on a public street without being issued a CCL in order to prove the corpus delicti of the charge. The court further held that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt the statutory exception of not being issued a CCL through his admission.
In Harvey, the defendant was a front seat passenger in a van that was pulled over for a traffic violation. The police officers testified that they observed the defendant reach down toward the floorboard area during the stop. The driver and the defendant exited the van at the officers’ request after the officers smelled alcohol and observed cups inside the van. The defendant’s pants were also undone. The police searched the van for alcohol and located a Springfield handgun in the area toward which the defendant had been reaching. 2024 IL 129357 at ¶¶3 – 4.
The defendant told the officers that he did not have a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card or a CCL. 2024 IL 129357 at ¶¶5 – 6. The trial court found the defendant guilty of possessing a firearm on a public street without a CCL, and the appellate court affirmed, but with one justice dissenting. 2024 IL 129357 at ¶¶8 – 9.
In his appeal to the Supreme Court, the defendant conceded that he was in constructive possession of the firearm but argued that the state had to show that he had not been issued a CCL at the time of the stop. 2024 IL 129357 at ¶13.
The Supreme Court noted that the state must prove statutory exceptions beyond a reasonable doubt (in contrast to exemptions, which are not elements and thus do not have to be proven by the State; see People v. Tolbert, 2016 IL 117846, 49 N.E.3d 389, 401 Ill.Dec. 1, holding that invitee language in the aggravated unlawful use of weapons statue was an exemption instead of an exception). 2024 IL 129357 at ¶14. Therefore, the state was required to prove that the defendant was not issued a CCL. 2024 IL 129357 at ¶16.
The Supreme Court next rejected the state’s position that it could prove the concealed carry exception by showing that the defendant did not present his CCL to the officers because the state had to prove the statutory exception in the statute; i.e., that the defendant was not issued a CCL. 2024 IL 129357 at ¶¶15 – 16.
The defendant further argued that the police never asked him if he had been issued a CCL and that no testimonial or evidentiary documents about his lack of a CCL were presented at trial. 2024 IL 129357 at ¶18. However, the Supreme Court stated that the trial court could have reasonably construed the defendant’s answers as amounting to him not being issued a CCL and affirmed his conviction. 2024 IL 129357 at ¶¶20, 29.
The court noted that it was reasonable to assume that, when talking to the police, an innocent person who is aware that his conduct is being challenged would offer an explanation for that conduct if one is available. The defendant had the opportunity to offer an explanation but did not. 2024 IL 129357 at ¶20.
The Supreme Court next rejected the defendant’s argument that the state did not prove the corpus delicti (i.e., the commission of the offense) of his charge. 2024 IL 129357 at ¶21. The corpus delicti generally cannot be proven only by a confession, and the state must provide corroborating evidence that the crime occurred. 2024 IL 129357 at ¶22. The court noted that the defendant confessed to only one element of the offense — i.e., that he did not possess a CCL — as opposed to confessing to all of the elements of the offense. 2024 IL 129357 at ¶24. The court further emphasized that its precedent had previously rejected the defendant’s contention that all out-of-court admissions must be independently proven. Id.
For more information about criminal law, see CRIMINAL RECORDS: EXPUNGEMENT AND OTHER RELIEF (IICLE®, 2024). Online Library subscribers can view it for free by clicking here. If you don’t currently subscribe to the Online Library, visit www.iicle.com/subscriptions.