Cases Pending, co-chaired by
Gretchen Harris Sperry (left) and Catherine Basque Weiler, has been updated to
discuss the Illinois Supreme Court's January Term, which begins Monday, January
8, 2018, with oral arguments scheduled for January 9-11, 2018. A total
of 6 cases will be heard – 5 criminal and 1 civil. The
following cases are scheduled for argument this Term:
People v. Ricardo Vara, No. 121823: January 9
People v. Marc Pepitone, No. 122034: January 9
People v. Theophil Encalado,
No. 122059: January 9
People v. Arthur Manning,
No. 122081: January 10
People ex rel. Berlin v. Hon. Bakalis, No. 122435: January
10
Thounsavath v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co., No. 122558: January
11
Below is a summary for one criminal case, People
v. Theophil Encalado and one civil case, Thounsavath v.
State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. Summaries for these cases and
others pending with the Illinois Supreme Court can be found in our
Cases Pending publication, accessible to ALA members on the ALA's website.
People v. Theophil Encalado
Defendant was convicted of three counts
of aggravated criminal sexual assault. The victim, Y.C., alleged that
at 6 a.m. one morning, defendant lured her into his car while she was
walking to a bakery, drove her into an alley, and sexually assaulted her.
C.C. alleged that over three years earlier, defendant had also forcibly raped
her, luring her into his car while she was walking from a nearby club.
DNA recovered from both victims matched defendant. Defendant's defense
was that both Y.C. and C.C. were prostitutes who had consented to sex in
exchange for money and drugs after he had picked them up and asked for "a
date." Prior to the commencement of voir dire, defense counsel
requested the court question prospective jurors: "you will hear evidence
about prostitution. Would that fact alone prevent you from being fair to
either side?" The trial court declined to ask the question, and the
appellate court reversed, finding this ruling an abuse of discretion.
While the purpose of voir dire is to
empanel an impartial jury free from bias or prejudice, it cannot be used to
indoctrinate jurors. In People v. Strain, the Illinois
Supreme Court held that defendants are entitled to expose juror predisposition
toward, and bias against, gangs. Before the Illinois Supreme Court, the
State argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting
voir dire on prostitution because there was no need to depart from the general
rule against allowing voir dire to preview particular evidence and potentially
indoctrinate jurors. Prostitution is not a topic that rises to the
level of such intense controversy; the gang issue addressed in Strain is
essentially sui generis. In the alternative, the State argues that any
error was harmless given overwhelming evidence of Encalado's guilt.
In response, Encalado asserts that the proposed question was phrased
neutrally and potentially benefited the State as well given that under
Encalado's version of events, State's witnesses were prostitutes. An
amicus brief filed on behalf of John Marshall Law School's Pro Bono Program and
Clinic asserts that: (1) the appellate court's holding would discourage
sexual assault victims, whether prostitutes or not, from coming forward in
that such voir dire questioning allows defendants to insinuate
that victims were prostitutes, circumventing the rape shield statute's
general bar on admission of evidence about a victim's sexual history (or past
work as a prostitute); and (2) bias against prostitutes is stronger than
bias against patrons of prostitutes.
Thounsavath v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co.
This issue in this case is whether a
driver exclusion endorsement in an automobile policy barring coverage for the
named insured violates Illinois law and public policy.
Plaintiff was insured by Defendant
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Her policy specifically
provided that State Farm would have no liability for losses incurred “while any
motor vehicle is operated by: Clinton M. Evans.” Plaintiff was subsequently
involved in an automobile accident while traveling as a passenger in a vehicle
which was owned and operated by Mr. Evans. She thereupon filed a claim with
State Farm, which denied coverage. Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment
action and on cross-motions for summary judgment, the circuit court granted
Plaintiff’s motion.
On appeal, the First District Appellate
Court affirmed. The appellate court noted that several cases have upheld the
validity of named driver exclusions, but distinguished them on the basis that
those exclusions were enforced as to parties other than the named insured. In
reaching its decision, the Court relied on American Access Casualty Co.
v. Reyes, 2013 IL 115601, which held that under section 7-317(b)(2) of the
Financial Responsibility Law (625 ILCS 5/7-317(b)(2), which mandates insurance
coverage, a named insured could not be excluded from coverage under a named
driver exclusion provision in an insurance policy.
In its petition for leave to appeal,
State Farm argues that the appellate court misapplied Reyes, and departed from
other authority suggesting the validity of named driver exclusions in Illinois.
DISCLAIMER: The Appellate Lawyers Association does not provide legal services or legal advice. Discussions of legal principles and authority, including, but not limited to, constitutional provisions, statutes, legislative enactments, court rules, case law, and common-law doctrines are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice.
