# People v. Love

> Appellate Court of Illinois · January 16, 2002 · 327 Ill. App. 3d 313

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729224

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TERRANCE LOVE, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** January 16, 2002
- **Citations:** 327 Ill. App. 3d 313; 261 Ill. Dec. 580; 763 N.E.2d 829; 2002 Ill. App. LEXIS 40
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cook
- **Judges:** Turner, Cook
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729224

## Opinion text

JUSTICE COOK, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent and would reverse and remand for a new trial. The potential of defendant’s spitting did not pose a substantial threat to the people in the courtroom. Defendant’s potential conduct did not threaten bodily injury. If defendant did spit on someone, the problem could be remedied by use of a paper towel. This case is not similar to a case where there is a concern that defendant will strike someone, thereby justifying shackles. If a court is concerned that defendant might speak out of turn, is the court justified in placing tape over defendant’s mouth?
The jury was clearly invited to speculate why defendant was forced to wear the mask. If the jury speculated that defendant had some communicable disease, that would have been prejudicial to defendant. The jury would have thereby been inclined to view the charged spitting as a more serious offense than it was.
Defendant sat through this trial without removing the mask and without attempting to spit on anyone. The trial court should have accepted defendant’s promise that he would not spit until the time that defendant broke that promise. Spitting in court in this case would have had its own consequences for defendant, who would thereby have insured his conviction.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729224. Public record. Not legal advice.