Criminal Law

The Illinois Supreme Court considered the question of whether the appellate court erred in finding that defendant was entitled to good-behavior credit under the County Jail Good Behavior Allowance Act after the circuit court sanctioned the defendant with 30 days’ imprisonment for violating the electronic monitoring of his pretrial release. The supreme court reversed the appellate court, explaining that the 30-day imprisonment was not a sentence under the Act and, as a result, defendant was not entitled to good-conduct credit against that sanction. (NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, HOLDER WHITE, CUNNINGHAM, ROCHFORD, and O’BRIEN, concurring)

Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery and was sentenced to two years and six months in prison. On appeal, defendant argued that his conviction should be reversed because the State failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt his affirmative defense of self-defense and self-defense of others. Defendant also argued, in the alternative, that his conviction should be reversed because the trial court did not properly instruct the jury and only polled 11 out of 12 jurors. The appellate court affirmed, finding that a rational jury could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury, and that the trial court’s error of polling fewer than all jurors did not rise to the level of plain error. (LAMPKIN and ROCHFORD, concurring)

Respondent was adjudicated to be a delinquent minor in connection with his unlawful use of a weapon, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, and unlawful possession of a firearm and firearm ammunition. At sentencing, the court determined respondent was a violent juvenile offender and adjudicated him a ward of the court and he was committed to the custody of the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice. On appeal, respondent argued that the circuit court abused its discretion in declining to accept respondent’s guilty plea, that the circuit court erred in failing to strike the State’s notice to prosecute him as a violent juvenile offender, and that the State failed to meet its burden to prove that respondent was a violent juvenile offender and that the circuit court erred in calculating the sentencing credit. The appellate court affirmed, but modified his sentence to reflect a total of 139 days of pre-sentence credit instead of the originally-granted 46 days. (TAILOR, concurring and ODEN JOHNSON, dissenting)

Following a jury trial conducted in absentia, defendant was convicted of aggravated battery in a public place of accommodation. The Illinois Supreme Court considered with whether the trial court substantially complied with the admonishment requirement for trials in absentia contained in section 113-4(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the trial court informed defendant that his failure to appear could result in a trial without him, but did not advise defendant that his absence would also waive his right to confront the witnesses against him. The supreme court concluded that the trial court’s admonishments substantially complied with the statute and reversed a contrary judgment of the appellate court. (NEVILLE, THEIS, OVERSTREET, HOLDER WHITE, CUNNINGHAM, and O’BRIEN, concurring)

The Illinois Supreme Court considered whether the trial court committed plain error when it tendered Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions Nos. 11.49 and 11.50 to the jury during defendant’s trial for threatening a public official. Defendant argued that the jury instructions were conflicting and that it was plain error to tender them to the jury. The appellate court held that the instructions correctly set forth the applicable law, and it was not error for the trial court to tender them to the jury. The supreme court affirmed, finding that the instructions fully and accurately informed the jury of the applicable legal principles with IPI Criminal No. 11.49 providing a general definition and IPI Criminal No. 11.50 directing the jury as to what propositions had to be established to prove guilt. (NEVILLE, THEIS, OVERSTREET, HOLDER WHITE, ROCHFORD, and O’BRIEN, concurring)