Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction for first-degree murder and accompanying 80-year prison sentence. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court made several errors, including that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to use leading questions and a witness’ prior statements, in admitting autopsy photos, and in failing to properly admonish a potential juror. Defendant also argued that the trial court imposed an unduly long sentence on an improper basis. The appellate court reversed and remanded for re-sentencing, finding that the trial court improperly considered the victim’s death a second time when the court emphasized it during sentencing. (C.A. WALKER, concurring and TAILOR, concurring in part and dissenting in part)

The Illinois Supreme Court considered the language of the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission Act and addressed what evidence is needed to rescind the appointment of a special prosecutor under section 3-9008 of the Counties Code. The circuit court had terminated proceedings under the TIRC Act and denied petitioner’s motion to have the appointment of the special prosecutor rescinded; decisions that the appellate court reversed. The supreme court found that the appellate court properly reversed termination of the TIRC Act proceedings but that it erred when it reversed the circuit court’s denial of petitioner’s motions to rescind the appointment of the special prosecutor. The court explained that the special prosecutor’s position as a supervisor at the time that petitioner was arrested, charged, and prosecuted was not sufficient to establish that he had a conflict of interest. (THEIS, OVERSTREET, CUNNINGHAM, and ROCHFORD, concurring and NEVILLE and O’BRIEN, concurring in part and dissenting in part)

The State filed an interlocutory appeal of a trial court order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence that police obtained via a warrantless and non-consensual search of the defendant’s residence. The State argued that search was valid under the emergency exception to the fourth amendment’s warrant requirement. The appellate court agreed and reversed, explaining that the facts established that the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that someone was in the house and that person needed immediate assistance. (JORGENSEN and BIRKETT, concurring)

Defendant, who was indicted for numerous felonies including unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, indecent solicitation of a child, traveling to meet a minor, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, appealed from a trial court order denying his motion for release made under SCR 604(h). The appellate court affirmed, explaining that under its de novo review  the State met its burden for the denial of pretrial release, including that defendant posted a real and present threat to the safety of the community by clear and convincing evidence and that no less restrictive means could mitigate that threat. (NAVARRO and MITCHELL, concurring)

Defendant appealed from his adjudication of delinquency after a guilty finding of first-degree murder and aggravated discharge of a firearm, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient where the evidence could lead to the conclusion that the decedent, a bystander, was just as likely to have been killed by return shots fired by the intended victim. The appellate court affirmed, explaining that a rational factfinder could have found that the fatal gunshot was fired by a group including the defendant which included evidence that defendant’s colleagues fired many more rounds than their intended victim. The appellate court also held that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel and that there was no error with regard to the admission of evidence. (MITCHELL and NAVARRO, concurring)