Criminal Law

Court denied Defendant's petition to rescind statutory summary suspension (SSS) of his driver's license. A blood alcohol test was performed on Defendant when he was being treated in ER for injuries sustained after a multi-car collision. The physician-patient privilege did not prevent disclosure of the blood alcohold test results to law enforcement, under Section 11-501.4-1 of Vehicle Code. In SSS proceeding, it was proper for trooper and court to consider test results in determining whether reasonable grounds existed to believe Defendant had been under influence of alcohol while he was driving.  Trooper's conclusion served as a basis for arrest of Defendant and to trooper giving Defendant the warnings to motorist, and thus Defendant's license was subjected to SSS under implied consent provision of Vehicle Code. Court properly allowed and considereed testimony of trooper as to test results in decision to deny petition to rescind.(HOFFMAN and LAMPKIN, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of armed robbery with a dangerous weapon other than a firearm, and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Defendant was caught shoplifting $33 worth of underclothes from a dollar store, and when confronted flashed a box cutter in his hand. Court was aware of mitigating factors, including Defendant's history or addiction and homelessness and his participation in treatment program. Offense for which convicted is a Class X offense, and Defendant was mandatorily subject o Class X sentencing based on his criminal background. Sentence is not manifestly disproportionate to nature of offense. (MASON, concurring; HYMAN, dissenting.)

Court properly granted Defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Defendant was in custody and was asked 2 interrogatory questions without prior Miranda warnings. Officer had directed occupants of vehicle to exit the vehicle, asked them for ID, and subjected them to a thorough search; officer never told them they could or could not leave. Officer asked them who owned a backpack found in vehicle, and asked them about the white powdery substance found inside it. Officer's search resembled a search incident to arrest and carried strong implications of police custody. (HOLDRIDGE, concurring; SCHMIDT, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

Defendant, age 18 at time of offense, was convicted of 1st degree murder for his participation in a drive-by shooting. Sentence of 60 years is not excessive and does not violate proportionate penalties clause. Court's consideration of Defendant's age coincided with his pattern of criminality from when he was a juvenile into adulthood. Court's decision to focus on the seriousness of the offense was not improper.(PIERCE and WALKER, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of aggravated DUI. Court erred in applying an improper double enhancement as the same prior felony that was an element of his offense was also considered as a predicate offense making Defendant eligible for mandatory Class X sentencing. As the double enhancement error resulted in Defendant being sentenced to 3 additional years of imprisonment, sentencing hearing was fundamentally unfair. (CARTER and HOLDRIDGE, concurring.)