{
  "id": 3203489,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KENNETH YAEGER, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Yaeger",
  "decision_date": "1980-05-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 78-405",
  "first_page": "481",
  "last_page": "483",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 481"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 415",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3210532
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/84/0415-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 271,
    "char_count": 4337,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.888,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.09030526490154445
    },
    "sha256": "4b72000fdd0ed2550b1c52f926d0e96790dfcc4b499cb6fd5d5febfe326317d0",
    "simhash": "1:126feb32f7f989f1",
    "word_count": 678
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:36:38.181565+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. KENNETH YAEGER, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE BARRY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis appeal arose out of the same facts recited in People v. Yaeger, (1980), 84 Ill. App. 3d 415. The defendant Kenneth Yaeger was charged by 10 indictments in the Circuit Court of Peoria County. On the defendant\u2019s motion all 10 indictments were dismissed. Upon a motion for rehearing four of the 10 indictments were reinstated but were ultimately dismissed again because of post-indictment pre-arrest delay. The State appealed from the dismissal in case No. 79-358 and this court affirmed. The six indictments which were originally dismissed are the subject of this appeal. The State has conceded that one of the six dismissed indictments was a duplicate charge of the same offense and was properly dismissed.\nAccordingly, only five of the dismissed indictments are contraverted by the State on this appeal. The procedural facts which led to this appeal were summarized in case No. 79-358 and will not be repeated again here. However for reference purposes the table created for appellate case No. 79-358 will again be reproduced:\nDesignation in this opinion Circuit Charged Court Date of Number Offense Offense charged Appellate Court Number\nA. 75-CF-3677 4/9/75\nCharging delivery of a 79-358 substance containing MDA\nB. 75-CF-3678 4/10/75\nTwo counts \u2014 charging 79-358 delivery of a substance containing MDA\nC. 75-CF-3679 5/21/75\nCharging delivery of a 79-358 substance represented to be a controlled substance\nD. 75-CF-3744 4/11/75\nCharging delivery of a 78-405 substance represented to be a controlled substance\nE. 75-CF-3761 5/21/75\nCharging delivery of a 78-405 substance containing Phenmetrazine\nF. 75-CF-3848 5/21/75\nCharging delivery of a 78-405 substance containing MDA\nG. 75-CF-3868 4/16/75\nCharging delivery of a 78-405 substance containing cannabis\nH. 75-CF-3869 4/23/75\nCharging delivery of a 78-405 substance MDA to Glenn Perkins\nI. 75-CF-5111 5/23/75\nCharging delivery of a substance containing MDA to Jon Conley\nJ-75-CF-5112 4/23/75\nCharging delivery of 79-358 a substance containing MDA to John Conley\nThe State has appealed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(a) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 110A, par. 604(a)). They have phrased two issues as follows:\n\u201cI\nDid the trial court err in dismissing 75-CF-3848 when the additional discovery ordered on April 17,1978, was orally supplied at that hearing?\nII\nDid the court abuse its discretion in dismissing cases numbered 75-CF-3744, 75-CF-3761, 75-CF-3868 and 75-CF-3869?\u201d\nThe defendant has conceded in his brief that discovery was fully complied with in 75-CF-3848, but contests the State\u2019s appeal on the four remaining cases. The State argues that the trial court cannot dismiss the indictments with prejudice as a sanction for noncompliance with court ordered discovery.\nWe will not reach the issue raised by the State\u2019s argument in this appeal nor do we concur with the parties that case No. 75-CF-3848 should be reversed. We do, however, agree with the defendant\u2019s alternative argument that the dismissal of the indictments should be affirmed because of a violation of defendant\u2019s right to a speedy trial.\nAll the remaining indictments in addition to the four which were the subject matter of appellate case No. 79-358 are equally violative of defendant\u2019s constitutional right to a speedy trial. The delay of 31 months in arresting the defendant was unreasonably long and not justified by the reasons which caused it. We find the delay here applicable to all 10 indictments against the defendant including those five raised in this appeal. Our holding in People v. Yaeger mandates an affirmance of this appeal also.\nFor the reasons stated the judgment of the Circuit Court of Peoria County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nSCOTT and STOUDER, JJ., concur.\nNo appeal was taken because the State concedes this indictment charged the same offense as the indictment in Circuit Court No. 75-CF-5112.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE BARRY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael M. Mihm, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria (John X. Breslin and Rita Kennedy, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People.",
      "Robert Agostinelli and Stephen Omolecki, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KENNETH YAEGER, Defendant-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 78-405\nOpinion filed May 30, 1980.\nMichael M. Mihm, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria (John X. Breslin and Rita Kennedy, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People.\nRobert Agostinelli and Stephen Omolecki, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0481-01",
  "first_page_order": 503,
  "last_page_order": 505
}