Criminal Law

Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder on a theory of felony murder predicated on armed robbery. On appeal, defendant argued that his custodial statements should have been suppressed because investigating officers failed to read him the simplified version of the Miranda warnings required for minors, this his statement was the fruit of a warrantless arrest, that the trial court erred in excluding posts that the victim had made to social media before the shooting, and that the trial court improperly considered the proceeds from the armed robbery as “compensation" during sentencing. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while officers were required to give defendant the simplified version of Miranda for minors, the overall circumstances of the interrogation and tactics used by the officers did not violate defendant’s Miranda rights or render his confession involuntary. The appellate court also found no error with regard to the entry of evidence and that the trial court considered the proper factors during sentencing. (McBRIDE and HOWSE, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of grooming in connection with his activities as a church volunteer and was sentenced to 180 days in jail and 30 months of sex offender probation. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting testimony from the defendant’s former girlfriend and church pastor and in defining certain terms for the jury. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in the admission of evidence. The appellate court further explained that the trial court incorrectly allowed testimony to establish false exculpatory statements where the statements at issue were unrelated to the charges against the defendant. The appellate court also explained that the testimony was improper because it amounted to impeachment on a collateral matter through the use of extrinsic evidence. (HARRIS and DeARMOND, concurring)

In a case with a lengthy procedural history, defendant requested that the appellate court remand for a hearing regarding whether he should be sentenced as an adult. Defendant argued that the trial court erred when it declined to hold a hearing on this issue on the basis that doing so would violate an earlier mandate from the appellate court. The appellate court agreed with defendant and remanded for further proceedings. (HUTCHINSON and SCHOSTOK, concurring)

Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in exchange for a sentence of natural life in prison and later sought leave to file a successive post-conviction petition raising a claim of actual innocence. Defendant submitted the affidavits of four witnesses in support of the petition. The trial court concluded that none of the witnesses qualified as newly discovered evidence capable of supporting a claim of actual innocence and denied the motion for leave to file the successive post-conviction petition. The appellate court disagreed, reversed the trial court, and remanded for second-stage proceedings. (ODEN JOHNSON and NAVARRO, concurring)

Following a stipulated bench trial, defendant was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol and was sentenced to two years of court supervision. On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction and that the stipulated bench trial was tantamount to a guilty plea, requiring admonishments pursuant to SCR 402. The appellate court agreed with the first contention and reversed, explaining that there was insufficient evidence to show that defendant was in actual physical control of a vehicle and that the State did not present evidence to support a conclusion that the defendant was intoxicated. (STEIGMANN and KNECHT, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of six counts of first-degree murder and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Defendant then filed a post-conviction petition, which was denied at the second stage. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a third-stage evidentiary hearing; however, during the hearing the trial court refused to allow defendant to testify. Defendant appealed again and the appellate court remanded for additional third-stage post-conviction proceedings, explaining that the evidentiary hearing was rendered incomplete and the trial court operated under the incorrect belief that it lacked the discretion to allow defendant to testify and instructed the trial court to exercise its discretion on remand. (HUTCHINSON and JORGENSEN, concurring)

Defendant appealed from the revocation of his pretrial release. Defendant was on release for a Class A misdemeanor charge and his pretrial release was revoked after he subsequently was charged with committing two felonies and two additional Class A misdemeanors. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court reasonably concluded that no condition or set of conditions would prevent defendant from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. The appellate court also cited to defendant’s current lack of a valid address and the lack of evidence that he would be able to obtain one, and his criminal history. (McLAREN and BIRKETT, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of being an armed habitual criminal as well as multiple gun offenses and was sentenced to nine years in prison. On appeal, he argued that the AHC was unconstitutional, that the circuit erred by refusing to accept his guilty plea, that the jury improperly considered hearsay and other crimes evidence, and that he was improperly sentenced. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the AHC statute was not unconstitutional as applied to the defendant, that there was no obvious error in the testimony the jury considered, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. (HYMAN and GAMRATH, concurring)