People v. Neese

Defendant was indicted on one count of felony theft, based on theft of coins from washing machine in apartment building. Court granted Defendant's motion to suppress statements he made to a police officer during phone conversation, finding that statements they were made during plea discussion. Rule 402(f) did not apply to phone conversation between officer and defendant. There was no evidence that Defendant subjectively expected that he was involved in any plea discussion, but only comments that Defendant intended to provide written statement in exchange for officer charging him with only a misdemeanor. Even if Defendant had subjective expectation of negotiating a plea, it would not have been objectively reasonable, as nothing would indicate to a reasonable person in Defendant's position that officer had authority to engage in a plea discussion, to offer plea deal, or enter into plea agreement.(HUTCHINSON and HUDSON, concurring.)