Criminal Law

Court properly attributed several delays in setting trial to Defendant, and properly denied his motion to dismiss charges based on violation of speedy trial right. Court explicitly asked defense counsel to continue matter on Defendant's motion, and defense counsel answered affirmatively; Defendant failed to promptly repudiate defense counsel's actions. Defendant has responsibility to take affirmative action when he becomes aware that his trial is being delayed by objecting to delay by written or oral demand for trial. (HOLDRIDGE, concurring; O'BRIEN, dissenting.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of burglary and contributing to criminal delinquency of a minor, after he allegedly enlisted help of his wife's 2-year-old daughter to steal cash and checks from office within Secretary of State building. Evidence was sufficient to prove that Defendant entered the office without authority, as he entered office a second time. Employee's testimony that video showing Defendant carrying something in his right hand that was consistent with bundle of cash and checks that she had earlier put in office desk was rationally based on witness' perception, and did not depend on whether she had personal knowledge of actual objects or actions depicted by video. Thus, her opinion was the kind of opinion that a layperson could normally draw, and it was helpful to a clear understanding of fact in issue. Evidence was insufficient to prove Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of contributing to criminal delinquency of a minor, as evidence failed to show that Defendant directed child to run toward office area.(HOLDER WHITE and APPLETON, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of aggravated driving while license suspended. In announcing Defendant's sentence of 4 years, court made no mention of fines, and none made in written sentencing order.  Fines totaling $150 were improperly levied against Defendant, as they were imposed by circuit clerk, who is without authority to impose fines. (LYTTON and McDADE, concurring.)

Defendant was indicted on 2 counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (his daughter, then age 6). Jury had authority to determine how to weigh victim's in-court testimony denying touching commit against testimony of victim's mother and victim's recorded statement describing touching. Evidencew was sufficient to prove Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 115-10 of Criminal Code, which allows testimony to be admitted as exception to hearsay rule, in prosecutions for physical or sexual act against child under age 13, is not to be narrowly construed. Court's order was sufficiently detailed in granting State's motion to admit hearsay statements under Section 115-10. Once a witness with personal knowledge of filmed object testifies that film is accurate portrayal of what it purports to show, the video recording is admissible substantively, and no further foundation evidence is required. (HOLDER WHITE, concurring; TURNER, specially concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of multiple counts of aggravated kidnapping, armed robbery, and murders of 2 persons. Court imposed death sentence for 2 murders. Co-defendant, who elected bench trial and was found not guilty, was tried simultaneously before a single judge. That judge's pervasive corruption in other cases cannot alone support inference that he engaged in compensatory bias in this case; it is Defendant's burden to establish that judge was actually biased in his own case. Defense attorney's prior representation of member of victim's family does not establish per se conflict of interest; and Defendant waived conflict in open court.(ROCHFORD, concurring; DELORT, dissenting.)

(Court opinion corrected 4/28/16.)  Petitioners allege they were tortured by persons who previously served under supervision of Jon Burge Acts of torture (and interrogation for 30 and 33 hours, followed by confession) occurred after Jon Burge had been fired by Chicago Police Department in 1993. Language of Torture Act, as to definition of "claims of torture", is ambiguous as it is susceptible to 2 reasonable interpretations. In prior written Order and proposed legislation, Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission (TIRC), which was created pursuant to Torture Act, expressed its opinion that "claims of torture" includes those similar to Petitioners' claims, where alleged torture occurred at hands of officers previously under Burge's supervision, and thus fell within TIRC's jurisdiction and were reviewable by TIRC. Court defers to TIRC's interpretation, as TIRC is administrative agency charged with administration of Torture Act. (ELLIS and COBBS, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of 2 counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and 1 count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, all involving his girlfriend's daughter, then age 8-9. Section 115-11 of Criminal Code, which allows court to exclude from proceedings while victim is testifying, all persons who, in the court's opinion, do not have a direct interest in the case, except the media, applies to this case. Court physically moved trial to chambers. Court had authority to exclude people from courtroom while victim was testifying, per Section 115-111, without satisfying the more stringent limitations established by U.S. Supreme Court for closure of judicial proceedings. Court violated Defendant's due process rights by keeping Defendant in shackles, pursuant to court's blanket policy, during his trial without court having first determined that it was necessary, by conducting Boose analysis;. This was plain error, as evidence was closely balanced.   (WRIGHT, concurring; McDADE, specially concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 4/29/16.) Defendant was convicted of violating Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act, after jury trial at which court admitted lay opinion identification testimony of 4 witnesses, pursuant to Rule 701 of Illinois Rules of Evidence.  Witnesses identified Defendant as the person depicted in surveillance video or still photos taken from crime scene, showing theft of anhydrous ammonia and tampering with equipment at ag supply facility. Opinion identification testimony is admissible under Rule 701 if the testimony is rationally based on perception of witness and testimony is helpful to clear understanding of witness's testimony or determination of a fact in issue. A showing of sustained contact, intimate familiarity, or special knowledge of the Defendant is not required. Lay identification testimony is admissible under these principles as long as its probative value outweighs any prejudice under Rule 403. (GARMAN, FREEMAN, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, KARMEIER, and THEIS, concurring.)