The State, while acknowledging that it failed to produce the original second page of the complaint, claims that the trial court properly considered the second page of a duplicate version of the complaint as if it were part of the signed complaint.¶ 45 Defendant relies on the Court Records Restoration Act (at times, the Act) (705 ILCS 85/1 et seq. (West 2010)), and our supreme court's decision in People v. Wells, 182 Ill.2d 471, 231 Ill.Dec. 311, 696 N.E.2d 303 (1998), for his position that the State was required to satisfy the dictates of the Act if it wanted to restore the missing page two of the complaint for search warrant. That Act governs the loss or destruction “of any judgment or order, or other proceeding, of any judicial court of this State, or any part of the record of any judicial proceeding.”
The forfeiture doctrine serves the salutary purpose of prompting the parties to timely articulate arguments. People v. Wells, 182 Ill.2d 471, 490 (1998). An argument that could have been timely made, but was not, is forfeited.
¶ 39 Defendant argues that because his explanation for the killing was not improbable and was not impeached, the jury could not disregard his testimony and therefore the evidence is not sufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant cites People v. Wells, 182 Ill. 2d 471 (1998), for the proposition that "[w]here the testimony of a witness is neither contradicted, either by positive testimony or by circumstances, nor inherently improbable, and the witness has not been impeached, that testimony cannot be disregarded even by a jury." (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted.)
The laches doctrine bars claims by those who neglect their rights to the detriment of others. People v. Wells, 182 Ill.2d 471, 490, 231 Ill.Dec. 311, 696 N.E.2d 303 (1998). Application of the laches doctrine requires a showing of lack of due diligence by the party asserting the claim and prejudice to the opposing party.
This equitable defense bars claims by those who neglect their rights to the detriment of others, and requires a showing of a lack of due diligence by the party asserting the claim and prejudice to the party asserting the doctrine. People v. Wells, 182 Ill.2d 471, 490, 231 Ill.Dec. 311, 696 N.E.2d 303 (1998). In this case defendant "surrendered" himself to the Department in 1994 and the State filed its motion to amend the Thiem date in 2001.
That doctrine applies when the plaintiff has waited for an unreasonable length of time to assert his claim and the defendant has been prejudiced by the delay. People v. Wells, 182 Ill.2d 471, 231 Ill.Dec. 311, 696 N.E.2d 303, 312 (1998); Van Milligan v. Board of Fire Police Commissioners of Village of Glenview, 158 Ill.2d 85, 196 Ill.Dec. 665, 630 N.E.2d 830, 833 (1994). "The doctrine is grounded in the equitable notion that courts are reluctant to come to the aid of a party who has knowingly slept on his rights to the detriment of the opposing party."
A successful laches defense requires a showing of prejudice caused by the other party's delay. See, e.g., People v. Wells, 182 Ill.2d 471, 490, 696 N.E.2d 303, 312 (1998). Here there is none. The defense is insufficient as a matter of law.
"Manifestly erroneous means arbitrary, unreasonable and not based on the evidence." People v. Wells, 182 Ill. 2d 471, 481 (1998). However, de novo review is appropriate when neither the facts nor the credibility of witnesses is questioned.
"Manifestly erroneous means arbitrary, unreasonable and not based on the evidence." People v. Wells, 182 Ill. 2d 471, 481 (1998). However, de novo review is appropriate when neither the facts nor the credibility of witnesses is questioned.
Such issues should be aired at a separate proceeding. SeePeople v. Wells, 182 Ill.2d 471, 488-489 (1998) (separate proceeding needed after contents of lost warrant established). Allowing the Commonwealth to establish the contents of the lost warrant through application of the best evidence rule is consistent both with our decisions and those of other States.