Criminal Law

Defendant was found guilty of two counts of first degree murder and was sentenced to 45 years in prison. The appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, finding that the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury that it could find the State proved defendant guilty of both first degree murder and reckless homicide despite the fact that the two offenses are predicated on inconsistent mental states. The appellate court noted that while the trial court gave a correct instruction that contradicted its erroneous instruction, it was not possible to determine which instruction was relied on by the jury. (HETTEL and BERTANI, concurring)

Defendant appealed from his convictions for aggravated assault, criminal damage to property, aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and driving while under the influence of alcohol. Defendant argued on appeal that the circuit court erred in replaying video and audio recordings in the presence of the parties and trial judge, the trial court erred when it limited defendant’s cross-examination of a police officer, that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the State’s motion to bar defense counsel from questioning police officers about their failure to write police reports, that the State committed prosecutorial error during closing argument, and that defendant was entitled to monetary credit for time spent in pre-sentence custody. The appellate court previously reversed defendant’s convictions but ultimately was reversed by the Illinois Supreme Court which remanded to the appellate court. On remand, the appellate court affirmed and remanded to the circuit court so that it could correct the sentencing judgment to reflect the appropriate pre-sentence monetary credit. (BRENNAN and PETERSON, concurring)

Defendant appealed from the circuit court’s order revoking his pretrial release, arguing that the trial court erred because he was not subject to the Pretrial Fairness Act and the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions could be imposed to mitigate any threat defendant posed. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that even though the defendant had previously posted cash bail, he was on pretrial release and subject to the Act based on the State’s filing of a petition to revoke. The appellate court also explained that because the trial court granted the State’s petition to revoke release, which requires different elements than a petition to deny pretrial release, defendant’s arguments were not applicable to his situation and his argument lacked merit. (DeARMOND and GRISCHOW, concurring)

Defendant, who was charged with two Class X felonies, appealed from his pretrial detention by arguing that the circuit court did not have the authority to hear the State’s motion for relief and that it erred in granting the motion. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court had authority to consider the State’s motion for relief, despite the fact that the motion was heard by a different judge than the one who considered the initial detention petition and that the State met its burden of showing that no condition or combination of conditions could adequately mitigate the threat defendant posed to the safety of the victim or the community. (BRENNAN and DAVENPORT, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of unlawful cannabis trafficking in connection with the discovery of cannabis found in a commercial moving truck during a traffic stop. The traffic stop was initiated in order to conduct an inspection under the Illinois Motor Carrier Safety Law and state motor carrier safety regulations. On appeal, defendant argued that the officer lacked a reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle, that the officer unduly prolonged the stop or improperly sought consent to search the vehicle, that defendant did not give a knowing and voluntary consent to search, that the search exceeded the scope of any consent, that the officer lacked probable cause to search the boxes in the truck, and that the State failed to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err and the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. (ZENOFF and GRISCHOW, concurring)

Defendant appealed from his 35-year sentence for methamphetamine trafficking, arguing that his conviction should be reversed because the State’s evidence was obtained through an illegal search. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed, finding that the search of defendant was a valid search pursuant to the terms of the defendant’s mandatory supervised release agreement and that the State’s failure to enter the MSR  agreement into evidence was not fatal to its argument where the uncontested testimony established that defendant was on MSR at the time of the search. (HARRIS and VANCIL, concurring)