{
  "id": 3509166,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRUCE ELDER, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Elder",
  "decision_date": "1987-10-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 3-86-0580",
  "first_page": "417",
  "last_page": "419",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "162 Ill. App. 3d 417"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "491 N.E.2d 1372",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 Ill. App. 3d 774",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3447887
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/142/0774-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "469 N.E.2d 580",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Ill. 2d 216",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3152201
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/103/0216-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "476 N.E.2d 19",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 Ill. App. 3d 766",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3435644
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/131/0766-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 261,
    "char_count": 3950,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.75,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.856319230494445e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3050179759514937
    },
    "sha256": "5c874d4136fb6ff291e5c9857d14fa0c91513e344304eaa53d57f6fcd844cf4a",
    "simhash": "1:cd22579dca7304fd",
    "word_count": 670
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:31.562358+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRUCE ELDER, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE BARRY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe trial court denied the State\u2019s second motion to continue and its subsequent motion to dismiss the case with leave to refile, then ordered the State to proceed to trial of the defendant, Bruce A. Elder. The State presented no evidence and the court found the defendant not guilty. The State appeals.\nOn May 23, 1986, the defendant was charged with driving while his driver\u2019s license was suspended. The same day, the State\u2019s Attorney requested the defendant\u2019s driving abstract from the Secretary of State. On May 30, 1986, the defendant pleaded not guilty and trial was set for July 9,1986.\nThe day before trial, the State\u2019s Attorney sent a second request for the abstract to the Secretary of State. The next day, the trial court granted the State\u2019s motion to continue the trial because it had not yet received the abstract. Trial was rescheduled for August 6, 1986.\nOn August 6, the State\u2019s Attorney still had not received the defendant\u2019s abstract and requested another continuance. The trial court denied the motion, finding that there was a lack of due diligence by the State in prosecuting the defendant. The court then called the matter for trial. The State moved to dismiss the case with leave to refile; but the court denied the motion. After the State presented no evidence in the ensuing trial, the court found the defendant not guilty.\nOn appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred both in denying the motion to continue and in denying the motion to nol-pros the case. We agree with both contentions.\nWhere the prosecution of a case was commenced less than one year before the order of dismissal upon denial of the State\u2019s motion for a continuance, the court must grant one more court date for the State to commence its prosecution, that date to be within the 14-to 30-day time constraint provided in the second paragraph of section 114 \u2014 4(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 114\u20144(e); People v. Taylor (1985), 131 Ill. App. 3d 766, 476 N.E.2d 19.) Further, it is error for a trial court to deny the State\u2019s motion to nol-pros a case when the court has denied the State\u2019s motion for a continuance, the State\u2019s evidence is not available on the day set for trial, the State\u2019s request for nolle prosequi is not vexatious, and the defendant will not be substantially prejudiced by the court\u2019s granting the motion. People v. Rudi (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 216, 469 N.E.2d 580.\nIn the instant case, less than one year had passed since the State commenced prosecution of the case. The sham trial was for all practical purposes an order of dismissal. (See People v. Hollan (1986), 142 Ill. App. 3d 774, 491 N.E.2d 1372.) The trial court therefore erred in failing to grant one more court date, within 14 to 30 days, for the State to commence prosecution.\nThe trial court further erred in denying the State\u2019s motion to nolpros the case. Despite the court\u2019s statement that the State\u2019s motion was \u201cnothing but a rather unsubtle way to circumvent the dictates of law, rule, and fairness so as to obtain a \u2018continuance\u2019 and thus avoid its own lack of due diligence,\u201d we find no evidence in the record suggesting either that the motion was vexatious or that its being granted would have substantially prejudiced the defendant. Accordingly, the trial court should have granted the motion.\nThe judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.\nReversed and remanded.\nHEIPLE and SCOTT, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE BARRY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gary L. Spencer, State\u2019s Attorney, of Morrison (William L. Browers, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People.",
      "Verlin R. Meinz, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRUCE ELDER, Defendant-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201486\u20140580\nOpinion filed October 30, 1987.\nGary L. Spencer, State\u2019s Attorney, of Morrison (William L. Browers, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People.\nVerlin R. Meinz, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0417-01",
  "first_page_order": 439,
  "last_page_order": 441
}