Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from the circuit court’s orders detaining him prior to trial, arguing that the trial court incorrectly found that he posed a substantial risk or threat if released, was a flight risk, and that no less restrictive condition than pretrial detention could mitigate these risks. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err when considering the nature of the alleged offense, which involved firing a gun at a victim in a public parking garage, combined with defendant’s history of engaging in violent crimes in the past that also involved the use of a weapon and that this was sufficient to demonstrate that less restrictive methods would not mitigate the harm. (TAILOR and HYMAN, concurring)

The State appealed from a circuit court order granting defendant’s motion to suppress inculpatory statements given during a police interrogation. The State argued on appeal that the defendant’s statements to police were voluntary. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed, finding that under the circumstances the false promises made by law enforcement to encourage the inculpatory statements rendered them involuntary. (McDADE and ANDERSON, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder of five victims and was sentenced to a mandatory term of natural life in prison. Defendant filed a post-conviction petition in which he argued that his sentence violated his rights under the proportionate penalties clause because he was 22 years old at the time that he committed the offenses. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition and the appellate court affirmed the trial court order. The supreme court also affirmed, finding that defendant’s post-conviction petition failed to allege any facts specific to his circumstances other than age that would have supported an arguable basis that there was a violation of the proportionate penalties clause as applied to the defendant. (THEIS, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, and O’BRIEN, concurring and CUNNINGHAM, specially concurring. HOLDER WHITE took no part in the decision)

Defendant was found guilty, under an accountability theory, of two counts of aggravated battery with a firearm and ultimately was sentenced to an aggregate of 32 years in prison. The appellate court affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentence and the supreme court granted defendant’s petition for leave to appeal. Defendant argued on appeal that the investigative alert system used by the Chicago Police Department, which served as probable cause for the defendant’s arrest, was unconstitutional and that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. The supreme court affirmed, finding that state case law has “long recognized” the validity of warrantless arrests based on probable cause and that defendant’s arrest was not unconstitutional. The court also found no error in defendant’s sentencing. (THEIS, HOLDER WHITE, CUNNINGHAM, ROCHFORD, and O’BRIEN, concurring and NEVILLE, dissenting)

Defendant was found guilty of attempted murder of a police officer, aggravated discharge of a firearm, unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member, and possession of a defaced firearm. The appellate court reversed defendant’s conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member based on insufficient evidence and reversed his remaining convictions based on the cumulative effect of unpreserved trial errors. The supreme court affirmed the part of the appellate court’s judgment that reversed the conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member, but reversed the part of the judgment that reversed the remaining convictions by finding that defendant’s allegations of error were not sufficient under plain error review. (NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, ROCHFORD, and O’BRIEN, concurring and HOLDER WHITE and THEIS, specially concurring)

Defendant appealed from the trial court’s order denying him pretrial release, arguing that he was entitled to immediate release from pretrial custody because he was not tried within 90 days of the court denying him pretrial release. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the 90-day rule was not violated where a delay of time related to the defendant’s request to continue the case was not included in the calculation. (CAVANAGH and ZENOFF, concurring)

Defendant pleaded guilty to violating the Timber Buyers Licensing Act and was ordered to pay restitution to the victim. Defendant failed to comply with the payment order and the victim filed a motion to hold the defendant in contempt, which the trial court struck on the basis that he lacked standing to initiate contempt proceedings in the criminal case. The victim appealed and the appellate court reversed, explaining that there is no reason why only the State, and not the victim, could pursue contempt actions in a criminal case where restitution is ordered and that this conclusion was supported by the language of the Restitution Statute. (KNECHT and DeARMOND, concurring)

Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court did not have the power to detain him under the Pretrial Fairness Act. The appellate court affirmed, explaining that the trial court complied with the provisions of the Act and did not, as defendant claimed, disregard the Act when ordering him detained. (TAILOR and C.A. WALKER, concurring)