Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a victim under age 13. Judge did not err in failing to sua sponte remove a potential juror for cause who stated that she knew a police officer who appeared in video interview but who was not a witness.Defense counsel declined to challenge that person for cause or even to question her about her relationship with police officer. No ineffective assistance of counsel if defense counsel's failing to challenge, as Defendant received a fair trial and there is no reasonable probability that, but for counsel's failure to challenge, outcome of trial would have been different.  No error in jury watching video interview in presence of 2 neutral nonjurors (a clerk and a bailiff), or in jury starting to watch video before judge decided what they would be permitted to see, or in one juror having gone to use the restroom when the video began. (OVERSTREET and BOIE, concurring.)

Defendant, at guilty plea proceeding, pled guilty to misdemeanor criminal damage to property and misdemeanor domestic battery (and 3 other counts were thus dropped), and court unequivocally accepted the plea. Court asked Defendant if he would like to make a statement. As Defendant spoke, judge cut him  off mid-sentence, vacated his plea, reinstated all charges, and continued case to trial. Prior to being interrupted by judge, Defendant had made no claim that he was innocent of charges to which he had pled guilty. At trial, court found Defendant guilty of 2 counts and not guilty of all other charges. Where, as here, Defendant has entered into fully negotiated plea agreement admitting to commission to 2 crimes and has orally admitted to those in open court, and agreement or confession was accepted by judge on the record, and where court vacated the plea without a clear and unequivocal claim by Defendant of innocence of the crimes to which he has pled guilty, jeopardy is terminated and statute precluded subsequent trial as violation of double jeopardy. Judge improperly terminated plea hearing. (HOLDRIDGE, concurring; SCHMIDT, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

Defendant, who is African American, was convicted, after jury trial, of home invasion.  After opening statements, outside presence of jury, court noted that 2 jurors were starting to fall asleep, but to a much greater extent  "Juror B." On State's motion and over Defendant's objection, court dismissed "Juror B." (who was the only African American juror) for cause. Court did not deprive Defendant of equal protection or due process by removing "Juror B." for cause, as a race-neutral reason existed to do so: "Juror B." had fallen asleep during presentation of evidence.(SCHMIDT and LYTTON, concurring.)

Defendant was charged with misdemeanor DUI and failure to reduce speed. Court granted Defendant's motion to quash arrest, finding that officer lacked credibility based on his inexperience and his improper administration of certain field sobriety tests, and entered written order suppressing all evidence following the arrest. Court then dismissed the DUI charge. Suppression of evidence is not a final order and is not tantamount to an acquittal, and does not trigger double jeopardy. Court was without statutory authority to dismiss the DUI charge. As State is not required to establish probable cause to proceed on a misdemeanor charge, the failure to do so is not grounds for dismissal of the charge. Thus, State's alleged lack of probable cause was not a prejudicial denial of Defendant's due process rights.Claim that State's certificate of impairment was "false" did not result in a prejudicial denial fo Defendant's due process rights. (HOLDRIDGE, concurring; McDADE, specially concurring.)

Defendant pled guilty to aggravated battery. Court properly dismissed, as frivolous and patently without merit, Defendant's pro se postconviction petition alleging that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to share and discuss discovery documents with him. Decisions as to which items received in discovery a defense attorney chooses to share with or discuss with the client is a matter of trial strategy. Petition failed to contain factual allegations creating a basis for arguing that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.(CARTER and LYTTON, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault while armed with a firearm and aggravated kidnapping while armed with a firearm. The 15-year sentencing enhancements for those offenses violated the proportionate-penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution.Remanded for resentencing on both convictions based on the statutes as they existed before they were amended to add the unconstitutional enhancements, to allow court to reevaluate sentence in light of Defendant's cumulative sentence. (HUTCHINSON and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)