Criminal Law

Court properly denied Defendant's 3rd-stage postconviction petition. Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of attempt (1st degree murder), aggravated domestic battery, and aggravated battery. Although trial judge improperly allowed her husband to serve on jury, and refused to excuse him for cause, no ineffective assistance of counsel in defense counsel not using peremptory challenge to excuse him, as evidence against Defendant was overwhelming. Res judicata bar to this argument in postconviction petition, as court previously ruled on issue on direct appeal, as defense counsel's failure to exercise peremptory challenge was an affirmative acquiescence to jury service of judge's husband.(HOLDER WHITE and STEIGMANN, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of domestic battery. Court properly allowed State to impeach Defendant with conviction of a felony cannabis offense. A conviction of a felony that does not directly involve dishonesty can still be admissible. Judge's failure to explain his decision in detail, as to his applying each step of balancing test of People v. Montgomery, is not crucial.Jury was instructed that conviction was relevant to credibility only.(BURKE and SPENCE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. Court properly denial Defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. A police officer may conduct a Terry frisk during consensual encounter upon developing reasonable suspicion the citizen is armed and dangerous; officer need not develop reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.  Officer had reasonable suspicion Defendant was armed with a weapon, based on totality of circumstances known to officer at time of frisk. (HARRIS and APPLETON, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of aggravated vehicular hijacking (because victim was deaf), vehicular hijacking, and attempted robbery. State was not required to show Defendant's actual knowledge of victim's deafness. Although certain commentary by State was improper, as it was intended to engender sympathy for victim and to encourage jury to punish Defendant for crime's impact on her, conduct was not reversible error. Remarks were not so prejudicial that they were a material factor in conviction. Ample evidence supporting finding of guilt.(HOFFMAN and ROCHFORD, concurring.)

Contemnors, a domestic violence advocacy center and its executive director, appeal civil and criminal contempt orders entered against them based on their refusal, pursuant to statutory privilege for domestic violence advocates and victims, to produce documents for in camera judicial review. Advocacy center had been providing services to Defendant, who had been charged with armed robbery. Defendant's alleged threat to harm detective was communicated to advocate in course of advocate providing information, counseling, or advocacy, and thus, advocate-victim privilege applied to prevent disclosure of confidential communication in State's prosecution of Defendant for threatening a public official.An in camera review was unnecessary to determine whether documents sought fell within scope of privilege. Contempt order reverse, and fine imposed on contemnors vacated. (HALL, concurring; GORDON, specially concurring.)

Court properly granted State's motion to dismiss postconviction petition, as no showing of substantial prejudice.. Defendant's statutory advisement that he may suffer immigration consequences from his plea was adequate to stem prejudice. The fact that Defendant pled guilty while knowing risk of deportation belies his assertion that his decision would have been different if he had been told the risk was a certainty.(GORDON and McBRIDE, concurring.) 

Defendant was charged with, and after bench trial found guilty of, possession of a controlled substance and possession of cannabis. Court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress, and found , after listening to witnesses and deciding their credibility, that officer's statement of "come here" to Defendant was a request and not a seizure. Defendant's trial testimony, where he gave coherent and responsive answers to questions from his counsel and the State, supports conclusion there was no bond fide doubt of Defendant's fitness, and no error in absence of a fitness hearing. (McBRIDE, concurring; ELLIS, dissenting.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of delivery of a controlled substance (heroin) and sentenced to 10 years. Defendant was denied his right to a fair trial when court precluded and limited his introduction of tattoo evidence, as it was crucial to his misidentification defense. Court erred when it ruled the tattoo on his left arm was irrelevant, and did not permit buy officer to acknowledge the tattoos on either of his arms, and precluded him from demonstrating the transaction with the buy officer, and improperly compelled him to show his right forearm facing down during partial in-court demonstration. Court denied Defendant a meaningful opportunity to present his defense and confront witnesses against him.(HOWSE, concurring; BURKE, dissenting.)