Defendant was convicted of obstructing justice and driving under the influence. The appellate court affirmed and the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court improperly denied him a jury trial in the DUI case and that the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty of obstructing justice. The Supreme Court affirmed the DUI conviction but reversed his conviction for obstructing justice, finding that defendant’s actions did not amount to concealment because defendant’s refusal or recalcitrance to comply with the search warrant to obtain his blood or urine did not meet the definition of the term “conceal” where he did not take any action to place his blood or urine out of sight or to hide it from view. (THEIS, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, CUNNINGHAM, and ROCHFORD, concurring. HOLDER WHITE took no part in the decision)
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Concealement