Senate Bill 3388
Senate Bill 558
House Bill 1804
House Bill 4594
Senate Bill 3148
Senate Bill 2332
People v. Anderson
Defendant was convicted of armed violence, unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, and unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Prosecutor's statement, that Defendant did not "continually deny having the gun", was a rebutting of defense counsel's statement that Defendant, during his police interview, "continually denied" knowing anything about the gun, which State contends was a mischaracterization of Defendant's interview responses. Defendant's 16-year sentence is not of the same or similar severity as those in U.S. Supreme Court decisions which were de facto life sentences. Evidence was sufficient to support an inference Defendant intended to deliver cocaine and cannabis, given that drugs were individually wrapped packages, and he was carrying more than he could consume himself.(STEIGMANN and DeARMOND, concurring.)
People v. Cunningham
Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, with unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and aggravated use of a firearm, after Chicago police officers observed him loading a shotgun. The failure of police to preserve potentially useful evidence is not a denial of due process. No evidence that police destroyed Defendant's Bulls jacket intentionally or in bad faith. No evidence that failure to inventory jacket or ID, or destruction of jacket, was a discovery violation. As Defendant withdrew his specific request to exclude testimony as to the jacket, court's decision to deny his motion to dismiss, and not impose any other sanctions, was not an abuse of discretion.(CUNNINGHAM and DELORT, concurring.)
People v. Whitfield
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of aggravated battery of a child (his son, age 2). No error in court admitting and playing for the jury portions of his videotaped interrogation. The challenged statements of and questions by officers in video were not hearsay, as they were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted, but provided contest for what happened during interrogation and were useful in explaining Defendant's statements and admissions that he struck his son on his bare buttocks, with a belt made of thin leather.(STEIGMANN and DeARMOND, concurring.)