Criminal Law

Defendant was charged with first degree murder of his infant son. Prior to trial, the circuit court granted defendant’s motion in limine barring the State from presenting a video-recorded police interview of the defendant in its entirety and the State filed an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the evidence was relevant and that the circuit court erred when it concluded that it unfairly prejudiced defendant noting that while the defendant’s demeanor had the potential to cast him in a negative light, that was a risk he took when he voluntarily chose to talk to the police and that a fact finder should not be prevented from considering the interview because the risk did not work in the defendant’s favor. (BOIE and McHANEY, concurring)

Respondent was found guilty of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, ordered to register as a sex offender, and adjudicated as a delinquent minor under the Juvenile Court Act. On appeal, respondent argued that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because there was insufficient evidence that he engaged in improper conduct or that conduct was done for the purpose of sexual gratification. Defendant also argued that he was denied equal protection under the law because he received harsher treatment due to his familial relationship with the victim. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the charges were proved beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence and that defendant’s constitutional argument lacked merit. (FITZGERALD SMITH and PUCINSKI, concurring)

Defendant pled guilty to reckless driving at a hearing pursuant to a traffic ticket and subsequently moved to dismiss separate felony charges for attempted murder and aggravated battery that the State brought based on facts arising from the same incident as the traffic ticket. The trial court denied defendant’s motion and he filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing that the compulsory joinder statute barred the State from pursuing felony charges. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s decision and denied defendant’s petition for rehearing, explaining that the Illinois supreme court has held that the compulsory joinder statute does not apply to scenarios like this one where the offenses were separately charged by the use of a uniform citation and complaint form provided for traffic offenses. (MITCHELL and LYLE, concurring)

Defendant was convicted of murder and aggravated kidnapping on an accountability theory and was sentenced to a total of 41 years in prison. Defendant appealed from the trial court’s second denial of leave to file a successive post-conviction petition in which defendant asserted a claim of actual innocence based on the affidavits of two witnesses. The appellate court affirmed, finding that defendant’s arguments were either contradicted by evidence presented at trial or were ones that he could have made during trial. (HYMAN and TAILOR, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of four counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and one count of aggravated kidnapping and was sentenced to 45 years in prison. On direct appeal, defendant argued that he was denied a fair trial due to the State’s prejudicial and inflammatory remarks during rebuttal argument. The appellate court, proceeding under plain-error review because counsel failed to object during trial, agreed with defendant and reversed and remanded. The appellate court explained that the prosecutor’s remarks regarding the defendant’s immigration status compromised the integrity of the trial and the only remedy was to reverse and remand for a new trial. (ODEN JOHNSON and C.A. WALKER, concurring)

Defendant, who was found guilty of first-degree murder and armed robbery and was sentenced to life in prison, appealed from the denial of his motion for leave to file a successive post-conviction petition. Defendant alleged in the proposed petition that newly discovered evidence established actual innocence, that the State concealed and fabricated evidence, that the State used perjured testimony, and that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. Defendant attached numerous documents, including affidavits to his petition. The appellate court affirmed, and the supreme court granted defendant’s petition for leave to appeal. The supreme court also affirmed the denial of defendant’s motion to file a post-conviction petition, explaining that defendant failed to present a colorable claim of actual innocence or demonstrate cause and prejudice as to his remaining constitutional claims. (THEIS, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, CUNNINGHAM, ROCHFORD, and O’BRIEN, concurring)

The State appealed from a circuit court order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss for a speedy-trial violation, arguing that delays resulting in the postponement of the trial were caused by defendant. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that a delay caused by the defendant’s filing of a Franks motion was attributable to the defendant for speedy trial purposes and, after taking that into account, no speedy trial violation occurred. (McDADE and HOLDRIDGE, concurring)