Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery, for grabbing (and then releasing) the hand of a middle school student as she was walking to middle school on a public sidewalk. Although court erred in admitting evidence that assistant principal believed that Defendant was "grooming" victim, as such evidence was irrelevant to charged offense, any error was harmless. State impermissibly vouched for victim's credibility in arguing that victim was credible and that State believed she was credible. Evidence was not closely balanced, and jury was instructed that arguments were not evidence and that only they were the judges of believability of witnesses. Thus, erroneous statements did not severely threaten to tip scales of justice against Defendant.(CARTER, concurring; McDADE, dissenting.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of unlawful use or possessions of weapons by a felon and possessing a firearm with defaced identification marks.Evidence was sufficient to establish that an offense had been committed to corroborate Defendant's confession that the guns in his home belonged to him, including the fact that guns were seized from a bedroom in his home. Defendant argued that evidence should be suppressed because complaint supporting search warrant for his home was incomplete, in that second page of the complaint, which had been signed by judge issuing warrant, had gone missing.  Court properly denied motion to suppress, after State presented unsigned copy of complaint at hearing.State was not required to restore the complaint under the Court Records Restoration Act, because it had what it purported to be a complete copy of complaint.  State sufficiently authenticated that copy under rules of evidence.(McBRIDE and COBBS, concurring.)

Summary dismissal of postconviction petition was error, as attorney representing Defendant in direct appeal failed to file an appellate brief, resulting in dismissal of appeal. If counsel believed he could not raise any issue of arguable merit on appeal, he was ethically obligated to seek leave to withdraw as appellate counsel, or raise some issue in a properly filed appellate brief.(McLAREN and ZENOFF, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. Court was not required to admonish Defendant of the risks associated with admitting he delivered heroin as soon as that strategy became clear to the court. A trial court need only inquire into defense counsel's advice as to potential penalties associated with a lesser-included offense if defense counsel actually tenders the lesser-included offense instruction. Court should not interfere with what might be a defense strategy and need not give generalized admonishments to the defendant. Court was not required to ensure that Defendant agreed with decision not to object to State's tender of instruction. Defendant failed to show that 12-year sentence is manifestly disproportionate to nature or offense or that it is greatly at variance with spirit or purpose of law.(McDADE and WRIGHT, concurring.)

Illinois TOrture Inquiry and Relief Commission Ac does not provide relief to a petitioner who alleges that his conviction resulted from evidence which was physically coerced at the hands of police officers other than former Chicago police commander Jon Burge or his subordinates.  Explicit language of the Act limits its application only to petitioners who were victims of Burge or his subordinates.(ROCHFORD and HOFFMAN, concurring.)

Warantless use of a drug-detection dog at 3:20 a.m. at Defendant's apartment door, located within a locked apartment building, violated Defendant's rights under 4th Amendment. Good-faith exception to exclusionary rule does not apply, as at time of officers' conduct, binding 4th District precedent existed holding that common areas of locked apartment buildings are protected by 4th Amendment. Third-floor landing, located directly outside of Defendant's apartment door and nature of its use is generally limited to Defendant, one neighbor, and their invitees; landing is of limited access and not observable by "people passing by."  Thus, landing is curtilage. Absent the dog sniff, evidence relied on in complaint and affidavit for search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause for search warrant of Defendant's home.(FREEMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring; GARMAN, specially concurring; THOMAS and KARMEIER, dissenting.)