Criminal Law

Defendant, a minor at time of offenses, was convicted, after jury trial, of 1st degree murder, armed robbery, and attempted armed robbery. Court allowed State to introduce a photo of Defendant, taken 2 months prior to the offenses, showing him holding a gun next to a codefendant  contorting his hands in what codefendant's counsel described as a gang sign. Photo was irrelevant as State provided no link between photo and the charged offenses, but error was harmless. State introduced photo through 1 witness and never mentioned it again, and evidence against Defendant was strong enough to override any possible effect it may have had on the jury. Aggregate sentence of 45 years was not a de facto life sentence Even adding on the consecutive sentences for which he may receive good time credit, sentence is less than 40 years. (PIERCE and COGHLAN, concurring.)

Court held hospital in civil contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena order to produce medical records the State requested for medical records of victim in aggravated battery case. Hospital was mandated to assert physician-patient privilege to ensure that victim's records would be protected in accordance with section 8-802 of Code of Civil Procedure. State offered no evidence that victim had consented to disclosing her records. State has no duty to provide the records to Defendant because it never possessed them and has no greater ability to obtain them, and State has no duty to obtain the records under Rule 412. (LYTTON and WRIGHT, concurring.)

Defendant, age 21 at time of offense, was sentenced to natural life, having been convicted by jury of felony murder, home invasion, residential burglary, and attempt (robbery). Claims based on U.S. Supreme Court's Miller decision, which found unconstitutional mandatory life sentences for juveniles, are limited to young adults aged 18 to 20. Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of prejudice, and court properly denied his 3rd motion for leave to file successive postconviction petition.(KNECHT and HARRIS, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of delivery of a controlled substance. Taken together, the deficiencies in the evidence leave reasonable doubt as to Defendant's guilt. Undercover officer's identification was not reliable, and along with the other flaws to his credibility, it cannot stand. Surveillance video shows that officer had no more than 10 distraction-free seconds to observe the man from whom he purchased drugs. This perfunctory interaction undercuts his identification, given the lack of corroborating evidence. Officer did not explain the difference between the alleged purchase price of the heroin and the street value; and the prerecorded bill was not found. (WALKER, concurring; PIERCE, dissenting.)

Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of child pornography, alleging that he possessed lewd digital images of girls who he knew or reasonably should have known to be under age 13. Court properly denied motion to suppress images police officers obtained from a micro-SD card belonging to him. Defendant's wife retrieved the card for police from a shelf that was accessible to her, and thus she had common authority over the card and could consent to police searching it. Officers had reasonable grounds to remove Defendant from their apartment so that wife could obtain the card and give it to officers outside of Defendant's presence, to protect wife from Defendant who had been physically violent toward her previously.Five of the six factors which must be considered to determine whether an image of a child is "lewd" were satisfied. Based on her physical characteristics, girl in photo was under age 13. Evidence was sufficient to support conviction. (DAUGHERITY, concurring; WRIGHT, specially concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction pertaining to the evaluation of eyewitness testimony. The decision whether to request a certain jury instruction is generally a matter of trial strategy. By intentionally declining to have IPI Criminal No. 3.15 delivered, defense counsel was able to argue the shortcomings of the officers' identifications (which were 2 of the 5 factors mentioned in that instruction), while not calling any attention to factors that would actually hurt his case. This was plainly a sound trial strategy. (DAUGHERITY, concurring; McDADE, specially concurring.)