{
  "id": 261304,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIE NOBLE, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Noble",
  "decision_date": "1999-12-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 3-98-0785",
  "first_page": "980",
  "last_page": "982",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "308 Ill. App. 3d 980"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "214 N.E.2d 305",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "311",
          "parenthetical": "\"the law which was in effect at the time of the commission of the crime is controlling\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 2d 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5289953
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "261",
          "parenthetical": "\"the law which was in effect at the time of the commission of the crime is controlling\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/67/0249-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "553 N.E.2d 281",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "283"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 Ill. 2d 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3256710
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "390"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/135/0384-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "446 N.E.2d 240",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 Ill. 2d 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3106319
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/94/0242-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "708 N.E.2d 1114",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 Ill. 2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        243853
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/186/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "692 N.E.2d 376",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "295 Ill. App. 3d 34",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        45748
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/295/0034-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 372,
    "char_count": 5776,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.777,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.884805146940624e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4186898541189081
    },
    "sha256": "5fba9fae90f71a5040ed698357641da550ab0c6e5bf1d03f2f12e090ae0d3cfa",
    "simhash": "1:3a7c5b2525049fc1",
    "word_count": 952
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:54:33.383803+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIE NOBLE, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Willie Noble, was found guilty but mentally ill of first degree murder. 720 ILCS 5/9 \u2014 1(a)(1) (West 1996). He appeals his conviction, arguing that the insanity statute applied to his case was unconstitutional. For the following reasons, we reverse his conviction and remand his case for a new trial.\nFACTS\nBefore August 20, 1995, a defendant could prevail on an insanity defense by establishing that, due to a mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to either (1) appreciate the criminality of his conduct, or (2) conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. 720 ILCS 5/6 \u2014 2(a) (West 1994). Under both of these prongs, the defendant had the burden of proving his insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. 720 ILCS 5/6 \u2014 2(e) (West 1994). Effective August 20, 1995, the legislature amended the insanity statute by eliminating the second prong of the insanity definition (incapacity to conform one\u2019s conduct to the requirements of the law) and increasing the defendant\u2019s burden of proof to a \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d standard. Pub. Act 89 \u2014 404, eff. August 20, 1995 (amending 720 ILCS 5/6 \u2014 -2 (West 1994)).\nIn its information against defendant, the State alleged that he killed his wife on or about August 28, 1997. He subsequently admitted to killing his wife by forcing her head under the water at Banner Marsh. In February of 1998, his attorney sent him to Dr. Robert E. Chapman for a psychiatric evaluation, including an assessment of his sanity. Dr. Chapman concluded that defendant was mentally ill but not insane, since his mental illness did not affect him \u201cto the extent he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his behavior.\u201d In April of 1998, the State sent defendant to Dr. Anthony J. Caterine for another psychiatric evaluation. Dr. Caterine concluded that defendant had a \u201cmental disease and or defect\u201d but that he was not insane, since he \u201cdid appreciate that he was doing something wrong and criminal\u201d when he killed his wife.\nAround the time of these evaluations, the Appellate Court, Second District, declared Public Act 89 \u2014 404 unconstitutional. People v. Reedy, 295 Ill. App. 3d 34, 692 N.E.2d 376 (1998). The State appealed this decision to the Illinois Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, the legislature restored the aforementioned amendments to the insanity statute through a new public act. Pub. Act 90 \u2014 593, eff. June 19, 1998 (amending 720 ILCS 5/6 \u2014 2 (West 1994)).\nDefendant proceeded to a stipulated bench trial in August of 1998. The judge found that he was not insane and adjudged him guilty but mentally ill of first degree murder. Subsequently, the supreme court affirmed the second district\u2019s holding in Reedy. People v. Reedy, 186 Ill. 2d 1, 708 N.E.2d 1114 (1999).\nANALYSIS\nPublic Act 89 \u2014 404 is unconstitutional because it violates the single-subject rule of the Illinois Constitution. Ill. Const. 1970, art. iy \u00a7 8(d); Reedy, 186 Ill. 2d 1, 708 N.E.2d 1114. An act that is declared unconstitutional is void ab initio. People v. Manuel, 94 Ill. 2d 242, 446 N.E.2d 240 (1983). Thus, \u201c[t]he effect of enacting an unconstitutional amendment to a statute is to leave the law in force as it was before the adoption of the amendment.\u201d People v. Gersch, 135 Ill. 2d 384, 390, 553 N.E.2d 281, 283 (1990). In the instant case, the new public act that restored the amendments to the insanity statute does not apply retroactively to defendant\u2019s offense. People v. DeSimone, 67 Ill. App. 2d 249, 261, 214 N.E.2d 305, 311 (1966) (\u201cthe law which was in effect at the time of the commission of the crime is controlling\u201d).\nThese principles illustrate that defendant was entitled to pursue a defense under either prong of the former insanity statute. However, Public Act 89 \u2014 404 deprived him of a fair opportunity to consider a defense under the second prong. This fact is apparent from the reports of Drs. Chapman and Caterine. Both doctors concluded that defendant was not insane because he could appreciate the criminality of his conduct. However, they did not evaluate his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. They were not even asked to perform such an evaluation because Public Act 89 \u2014 404 had eliminated the corresponding prong of the insanity definition.\nUnder these circumstances, we cannot say that defendant had a fair opportunity to weigh his option of raising an insanity defense under the statute applicable to his offense. The State points out that the trial judge specifically found that defendant was not insane (a finding he had to make before adjudging defendant guilty but mentally ill (720 ILCS 5/6 \u2014 2(d) (West 1994))). However, the record indicates that the judge considered (and in all likelihood relied heavily upon) the reports of Drs. Chapman and Caterine in making this finding. We therefore reverse defendant\u2019s conviction and remand his case for a new trial. In doing so, we do not comment negatively on the performance of defendant\u2019s attorney or the trial judge, whose actions preceded the supreme court\u2019s final resolution of the constitutionality issue regarding Public Act 89 \u2014 404.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, we reverse the circuit court\u2019s judgment and remand defendant\u2019s case for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nLYTTON and KOEHLER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mark D. Fisher, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "Kevin W Lyons, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria (John X. Breslin and Dawn D. Duffy, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIE NOBLE, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3 \u2014 98\u20140785\nOpinion filed December 1, 1999.\nMark D. Fisher, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nKevin W Lyons, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria (John X. Breslin and Dawn D. Duffy, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0980-01",
  "first_page_order": 998,
  "last_page_order": 1000
}