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.
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.
A call for written admonishments in criminal casesBy Evan BrunoBench and Bar, February 2018The typical practice of orally delivering admonishments to a lay defendant ignores the glaring reality that virtually no human being—whether lay person or lawyer—is capable of retaining and recalling detailed information after hearing it only once. So why do the criminal courts indulge in this fantasy when such important rights are at stake?
The thousand-foot ruleBy E. Kenneth Wright, Jr.Bench and Bar, February 2018The Illinois Supreme Court recently issued a seminal ruling examining the constitutionality of the Illinois statute addressing the crime of unlawful use of weapons within 1,000 feet of a public park.
Illinois Supreme Court confirms Peterson convictionBy Mark Kevin WykoffCriminal Justice, December 2017The Supreme Court considered whether under separation of powers principles, the common-law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing governed the admission of the hearsay statements.
New laws from the HouseBy Steve BakerCriminal Justice, December 2017Recent legislation of interest to criminal law practitioners.
Sentence reduction legislation leaves defendants in limbo: What’s a defendant to do?By Steve BakerCriminal Justice, September 2017Practitioners must carefully determine if their client’s offense is affected by the changes in the legislation and if so, opt under the Statute on Statutes for their client to be sentenced to the reduced sentence.
Text messages + suicide = involuntary manslaughter? Maybe.By Linda J. WatsonCriminal Justice, September 2017This summer, the world has watched with perplexity the trial of Massachussetts’ Michelle Carter (now 20), who was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter on June 16, 2017 for encouraging a suicide. The verdict has brought forth many questions of just how far technology is pushing the edge of criminal culpability.
People v. Castleberry: The death of the void-sentence ruleBy Mark Kevin Wykoff & Julia Kaye WykoffCriminal Justice, April 2017People v. Castleberry has changed the landscape for purposes of raising and preserving issues in higher courts—all members of the criminal bar must be mindful of this new precedent and govern their advocacy accordingly.
A call for caution when limiting the public’s access to criminal courtroomsBy Evan BrunoBench and Bar, February 2017This article examines the delicate—and often blurry—line between a judge’s permissible exclusion of persons from the courtroom and the unconstitutional denial of the defendant’s right to a public trial.
People v. Jones: Prejudicial remarks in a criminal trialBy Edward Casmere & Eliberty LopezBench and Bar, December 2016In People v. Jones, the First District reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial in front of a new judge based on prejudicial comments made by the State and the trial court.
Criminal trials in BritainBy Hon. Alfred M. Swanson, Jr.(Ret.)Bench and Bar, September 2016Retired Judge Alfred Swanson recently observed a courtroom in Oxford, England and reports on how the proceedings differ from our own in Illinois.
Our evolving notion of what is an ‘impartial jury’By Linda J. WatsonCriminal Justice, September 2016In a world where the populace is becoming increasingly skeptical of governance, more-diverse juries are perceived as being more fair and impartial than those that are not.
Case notesBy Hon. Geraldine D’Souza, Claudia E. Castro, & Ronald L. LewisCriminal Justice, August 2016Three recent cases of interest to criminal law practitioners.
So you’ve been asked to take a prisoner litigation caseBy Stanley N. WasserFederal Civil Practice, June 2016Yes, as a member of the federal bar, you may be called upon to take on a prisoner litigation case. Here's what you need to know.
Case notesBy Kim D. Chanbonpin, Mary Cole, & Harry E. ClemCriminal Justice, February 2016Summaries of three recent cases: People v. Stapinski, In re H.L., and People v. Forrest.
