Criminal Law

Defendant was charged with five counts of first degree murder and one count of aggravated battery to a child. The State filed multiple motions in limine requesting rulings on the admissibility of certain evidence; some of which the trial court granted and some of which the trial court denied. The contested evidence included internet search history from defendant’s phone, hearsay statements made by the victim, and videos of the victim describing instances of abuse by the defendant. The State filed an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s adverse rulings. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that the trial court abused its discretion when it arbitrarily excluded some hearsay statements in part because the court incorrectly concluded that the testimony would be needlessly cumulative. The appellate court further found that the decision to exclude the videos was not an abuse of discretion where their probative value was substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect and where the evidence was allowed through wintess testimony. (LANNERD and KNECHT, concurring)

Defendant was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault and sexual abuse. Appellant, a rape counseling center, appealed from a trial court order finding it in indirect civil contempt for refusing to respond to the defendant’s subpoena requesting records related to the counseling of the alleged victim. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court order calling for an in camera inspection of the counseling records was a clear abuse of discretion where there was no evidence that the confidential statements contained in the record would provide a source of impeaching material that was unavailable from other sources. (HUTCHINSON and MULLEN, concurring)

Defendant filed a claim under the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission Act and the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission found sufficient evidence of torture to warrant judicial review. The circuit court then dismissed the TIRC claim for lack of evidentiary support, but before doing so expressed the opinion that the TIRC Act was a “terrible law.” The appellate court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, finding that the allegations contained in the petition “easily fell” within the jurisdiction of the TIRC Act and that a full confession was not required. (VAN TINE and McBRIDE, concurring)

Defendant was committed to a mental health center after being found not guilty by reason of insanity on a charge of aggravated battery. Defendant filed a petition for discharge and the district court granted the State’s motion for directed verdict. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court’s ruling was erroneous. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the circuit court misconstrued section 5-2-4 of the Unified Code of Corrections and ignored another element of the statute that required the court to determine whether the defendant would benefit from or was not in need of inpatient care and that expert testimony established that she would not benefit from inpatient care. (DAVENPORT and ANDERSON, concurring)