Quantcast

Illinois high court declines review of Madison County pre-trial detention case

MADISON - ST. CLAIR RECORD

Saturday, December 21, 2024

Illinois high court declines review of Madison County pre-trial detention case

Webp illinoissupremecourt2

Illinois Supreme Court | Illinois Supreme Court

SPRINGFIELD - Supreme Court Justices decided not to review an appellate court ruling that Madison County Associate Judge Emily Nielsen committed an error when she denied detention before trial for felony suspect Matthew Delaney.

Nielsen found he qualified for release because he didn’t injure anyone or intend to injure anyone as he sped away from police and struck a Honda Civic head on.

At a hearing in January Nielsen asked if the Civic driver suffered any injury and the prosecutor said the driver declined medical treatment.

Fifth District appellate judges ruled on May 8 that Nielsen should have granted an exception to last year’s law that generally requires release before trial.

The Supreme Court denied review on July 9, establishing Delaney as precedent for the Fifth District and a guide for judges in detention disputes throughout Illinois.

State’s Attorney Tom Haine charged Delaney with possession of a stolen vehicle and aggravated fleeing on Jan. 17.

He petitioned for detention, stating Delaney was on parole for home invasion, aggravated battery and burglaries when sheriff’s deputies tried to apprehend him.

He stated Delaney drove 87 miles per hour in a 55 zone.

At a detention hearing on Jan. 31 assistant state’s attorney Sean Williams argued that aggravated fleeing fit the definition of forcible felony in last year’s law.

The law identifies specific forcible felonies and contains a residual clause covering any other felony involving threat of great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement.

Williams compared Delaney to felony defendant Brian Rodriguez, whose bid for release failed in Lake County circuit court and Second District appellate court.

He fled a traffic stop and briefly took with him an officer who had tried to enter his vehicle.

Nielsen asked Williams what facts would suggest that Delaney threatened or inflicted great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement.

Williams said when officers discovered the vehicle was stolen they tried to stop it and it sped away at 21 miles an hour above the limit.

He said officers deployed spike strips which struck a tire but the vehicle crossed over a raised median and stopped when it struck a Civic head on.

Public defender Dawn Sheikh told Nielsen she never saw aggravated fleeing listed as a forcible felony and did not believe the state could provide case law or statute that listed it.

She said the Rodriguez case was distinguishable because he was charged with resistance causing injury and not with aggravated fleeing.

She said there was no evidence that Delaney contemplated harm from his actions and in fact no one was harmed.

Nielsen asked Williams, “What evidence do you have that would show the court that he contemplated injuring a specific individual or someone in the community?”

He said Delaney created a threat of great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and he had an opportunity to stop the incident. 

Nielsen found the state failed to prove that Delaney’s offense qualified for an exception.

“While his conduct may potentially threaten or could have resulted in great bodily harm or permanent disfigurement, no evidence was presented that anyone was injured or that defendant contemplated the threat of the same,” she wrote.

Haine appealed and turned the case over to chief appellate prosecutor Patrick Delfino of Springfield and deputy David Robinson.

Appellate defenders James Chadd, Carolyn Klarquist and Christopher O’Connor of Chicago represented Delaney on appeal.

Justices Barry Vaughan, John Barberis and Mark Boie found Nielsen committed an error.

Vaughan wrote that she interpreted the law narrowly, “in that an injury that was not permanent or disfiguring or great in nature was not enough.”

He found the residual clause does not require a particular threat to any individual.

“Our interpretation would not require every felony or charge of aggravated fleeing to be considered a forcible felony,” Vaughan wrote.

He found forcible felony occurs only when a defendant’s actions in a particular case actually threatened or inflicted great bodily harm, permanent disability or disfigurement.

On May 21 the Fifth District issued its mandate to Nielsen and Associate Judge Neil Schroeder.

Schroeder set a detention hearing but continued it in June on Delaney’s motion.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News