Editor’s CornerBy Mark Kevin Wykoff, Sr.Criminal Justice, August 2025A note from the Editor regarding new guidance from the Illinois Supreme Court related to the Safety Act and COVID speedy trial tolling rules.
No “Second Bite at the Apple” Pursuant to People v. CousinsBy Anthony BrunoCriminal Justice, August 2025In People v. Cousins, 2025 IL 130866, the Illinois Supreme Court clarified the consequences when the State fails to meet its burden in seeking pretrial detention under the Pretrial Fairness Act (PFA) (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1).
People v. Yankaway: Ready or Not, Here We ComeBy Hon. Robert McIntireCriminal Justice, August 2025In People v. Yankaway, 2025 IL 130207, the Illinois Supreme Court analyzed how to deal with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of statutory speedy trial provisions.
Safety Act Detention Hearing Timelines Following People v. CooperBy Hon. Joseph PedersenCriminal Justice, August 2025A summary of the recent Illinois Supreme Court case, People v. Cooper, which answered the following questions: What if the trial court fails to hold a detention hearing within those time periods as required by 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(c)(2)? Is the trial court then required to release the defendant on conditions?
Can a Defendant Be Charged with Both First-Degree Murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2)) and an Aggravated DUI (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a) and 11-501(d)(1)(F))?By Dan FultzCriminal Justice, May 2025Illinois courts have upheld convictions where defendants were charged with both first-degree murder and aggravated DUI, as in People v. Eubanks and People v. Mischke. In Eubanks, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing a jury instruction on reckless homicide, a lesser included offense, because the difference lies in the defendant's mental state, which should be decided by the jury. In Mischke, the appellate court upheld concurrent sentences for both convictions, rejecting the defendant’s argument that the law required consecutive sentences. Overall, Illinois allows such dual charges when the defendant’s actions show a strong probability of causing death or great bodily harm.
Homicidal vs. Suicidal IntentBy Dan FultzCriminal Justice, May 2025Fultz's article uses the case, People v. Oelerich, to illustrate how suicidal intent does not exempt a defendant from a first-degree murder conviction. In Oelerich, the defendant deliberately crashed his car while under the influence, claiming he intended to die, not to harm others. The court upheld his first-degree murder conviction, ruling that the act still met the knowledge standard since he knowingly created a strong probability of harming others. Suicidal intent does not negate the knowledge required for first-degree murder if the conduct foreseeably endangers others.
Intentional Homicide of an Unborn ChildBy Mark Wykoff, Sr.Criminal Justice, May 2025In People v. Lane, 2023 IL 128269, the issue before the Illinois Supreme Court was whether a finding of guilty for both first-degree murder and intentional homicide of an unborn child constitutes multiple murders, triggering 5-8-1 of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(1)(c)(ii) (West 2006)), mandating a sentence of life in prison.
In People v. Lane (2023), the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that killing a pregnant woman and her unborn child counts as only one murder for sentencing. Therefore, the mandatory life sentence under the multiple murder statute did not apply. The Court vacated Lane’s life sentence and ordered resentencing, also overruling the 1997 Third District Appellate case, People v. Shoultz, that treated such cases as multiple murders.
Will Illinois Have a New Public Defender System?By John RekowskiCriminal Justice, May 2025Illinois is considering HB 3363 to reform its public defense system by creating a State Public Defender and a State Public Defender Commission to support, not control, local public defenders. The main controversy is over who appoints local Chief Public Defenders—currently judges, but the bill proposes a state commission. The change aims to reduce conflicts of interest but faces strong opposition from judges and the Illinois State Bar Association.
Guilty but Mentally IllBy Dan FultzCriminal Justice, January 2025A court faced with an insanity defense may find the defendant "not guilty by reason of insanity" or "guilty but mentally ill." Although both findings take into account the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense, the implications and consequences of each are different. An insanity defense is a complete affirmative defense and is equivalent to an acquittal. On the other hand, guilty but mentally ill is not an affirmative defense, but rather an alternative finding. A defendant who is found guilty but mentally ill is not absolved of criminal responsibility and thus may be sentenced for the offense of conviction.
Programming Sentencing CreditsBy Hon. Randy RosenbaumCriminal Justice, January 2025This article addresses programming sentencing credits that are available to defendants in the trial court. It does not address other sentencing credits such as truth-in-sentencing, earned sentencing credits, credits available in the Department of Corrections, or revocation of credits.
Year 2000 Nonfirearm Version of Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault Adding a 10-Year Enhancement Declared UnconstitutionalBy Mark Kevin Wykoff, Sr.Criminal Justice, January 2025In People v. Taylor, 2024 IL App (4th) 231066, the Fourth District considered whether the aggravated criminal sexual assault statute that included a mandatory 10-year sentence enhancement when the perpetrator displayed, threatened to use, or used a dangerous weapon, other than a firearm, or any object fashioned or utilized in such a manner as to lead the victim *** to believe it to be a dangerous weapon, violated due process and was void ab initio. (720 ILCS 5/12-14(a)(1) (West 2006)).
Editors’ Column: Pretrial Fairness - One Year LaterBy Mark Kevin Wykoff, Sr.Criminal Justice, September 2024A note from Co-Editor Mark Kevin Wykoff, Sr. on the one-year anniversary of the Pretrial Fairness Act.
Criminal Justice Section Council ContributionsBy Julia Kaye WykoffCriminal Justice, July 2024A summary of the impact the Criminal Justice Section Council has made to the Illinois State Bar Association and statewide criminal law community over the past few years.
Guilty Pleas Following People v. WellsBy Hon. Randy RosenbaumCriminal Justice, July 2024The Illinois Supreme Court considered whether a defendant is entitled to additional jail credit after a negotiated plea in People v. Wells.
Judicial Notice and Expert TestimonyBy Alan DownenCriminal Justice, July 2024In People v. Heineman, the Illinois Supreme Court held that administrative regulations have the force and effect of law, not fact, meaning that when a circuit court takes judicial notice of an Illinois administrative rule it accepts that rule’s existence but not its truth.
Bevis v. City of Naperville and the Current State of the Second AmendmentBy Benjamin LawsonCriminal Justice, March 2024An overview of how we arrived at our present state of ambiguity about the second amendment’s scope and what the seventh circuit’s recent ruling in Bevis v. City of Naperville can tell us, if anything, about where we’re headed.
Is Silence an Admission?By Terrence WallaceCriminal Justice, March 2024In People v. Pinkett, the Illinois Supreme Court recently held that a defendant’s post arrest silence was neither material nor relevant to show consciousness of guilt.
Is Silence an Admission?By Terrence WallaceTraffic Laws and Courts, March 2024In People v. Pinkett, the Illinois Supreme Court recently held that a defendant’s post arrest silence was neither material nor relevant to show consciousness of guilt.
Voluntary Intoxication to Negate Specific Intent? People v. Grayer Gives the Green LightBy Mark Kevin Wykoff, Sr.Criminal Justice, March 2024The Illinois Supreme Court recently considered whether evidence of voluntary intoxication is relevant to the issue of intent given that the legislature amended section 6-3 of the Criminal Code of 1961, removing voluntary intoxication as an affirmative defense
Constructive Possession in People v. Teranza JonesBy Kellyn Doyle CoakleyCriminal Justice, October 2023In People v. Teranza Jones, the Illinois Supreme Court considered constructive possession by affirming the lower appellate court’s decision.
