Criminal Law

Defendant, who was arrested and charged with eleven counts of attempted first-degree murder, one count of aggravated battery with a firearm, five counts of aggravated discharge of a firearm, and five counts of reckless discharge of a firearm, appealed from a trial court order denying his request to be released from pretrial detention. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that defendant failed to file the required SCR 604(h)(2) motion and that this precluded the court from reaching the merits of the appeal. The court noted that defendant could still file the motion on remand. (MARTIN and D.B. WALKER, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of four counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and appealed, arguing that the trial court erred when it precluded defendant from testifying that the victim had threatened him and that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of two of the counts. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the evidentiary issue was forfeited on appeal because trial counsel failed to make the proper contemporaneous offer of proof of the testimony that was prohibited and that under a plain error review any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court further found the evidence sufficient to sustain the convictions. (SCHOSTOK and JORGENSEN, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a trial court order granting the State’s second petition to deny pretrial release and ordering defendant detained pending trial. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred in ordering him detained because the State lacked a statutory basis to file a second petition to deny pretrial release or, in the alternative, that the State failed to prove that defendant posed an unmitigable safety threat. The appellate court reversed, holding that a subsequent petition to deny pretrial release cannot be based on a subsequent non-criminal violation of pretrial release. The court remanded with direction that the circuit court release the defendant with or without modifications of his conditions of pretrial release. (VAUGHAN and BARBERIS, concurring)

Defendant appealed from his conviction for one count of aggravated domestic battery and two counts of aggravated battery. Defendant argued on appeal that his convictions on counts two and three should be vacated because the State violated his right to a speedy trial when it filed those charges more than 120 days after he was placed in custody, that one of the jurors was unqualified to serve, and that the trial court erred in ordering restitution. The appellate court found that defendant’s trial counsel should have raised the issue of a speedy trial violation and reversed the aggravated battery convictions. The appellate court further concluded that it was not plain error when the trial court allowed an individual to serve on the jury who as on felony probation at the time of the trial and that the trial court erred when it ordered restitution because the State did not provide any evidence justifying the imposition of restitution. (STEIGMANN and KNECHT, concurring)

Defendant appealed from the judgment of the circuit court finding him not not guilty of domestic battery, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to hold a discharge hearing within the statutory 60-day term and abused its discretion by refusing to take judicial notice of the substantive contents of a fitness evaluation. Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and argued that the trial court was required to close the court file after the discharge hearing. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err in its judgment or in its interpretation of the statutory law regarding discharge hearings. (McLAREN and SCHOSTOK, concurring)

Defendant, who pled guilty to aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, appealed and challenged the constitutionality of the AUUW statute. Defendant argued that the statute, which prohibits the possession of a gun by 18- to 20-year old individuals who have not been issued a FOID card is facially unconstitutional because it infringes on the right to bear arms for those individuals where their ability to obtain a FOID card is “burdened because of their age,” because they are required to get the consent of their parents. The appellate court rejected this argument, finding that the parental consent requirement did not violate the second amendment under recent precedent and that this was consistent with historical records. (HYMAN and C.A. WALKER, concurring)

Defendant, who was charged with multiple counts of domestic battery, appealed from a trial court order finding that she constituted a serious threat to public safety after an extended period of fitness restoration treatment and remanding her to the Illinois Department of Human Services for further treatment. The appellate court vacated the order, finding that the trial court erred when it held a fitness hearing in the defendant’s absence and remanded for a retrospective hearing to determine defendant’s fitness as of the date of the original hearing. (JORGENSEN and BIRKETT, concurring)