Criminal Law

In re Detention of Carpenter

In re Detention of Carpenter
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Act
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 133921
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
SIMON
After bench trial, court entered judgment finding Defendant a sexually violent person subject to commitment under Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act. The Act does not require appointment of evaluator on behalf of a person subject to a petition until after probable cause hearing and in preparation for trial. Court was within its discretion in granting State's motion to extend time to answer Defendant's requests to admit, as Assistant Attorney General took responsibility for inadvertence and error in not timely responding to motion, and no evidence of wrongdoing or prejudice shown.(PIERCE and LIU, concurring.)

People v. Shreffler

People v. Shreffler
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Weapons
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (4th) 130718
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Piatt Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
STEIGMANN
Defendant was convicted, after stipulated bench trial, of three counts of unlawful use of weapons. Stipulated evidence failed to prove Defendant guilty of the charged offenses. "Overall length" of shotguns should have been measured by length of a straight line between two farthest points on the gun. Flash suppressor at end of rifle's barrel should have been included in measurement of barrel's length, as flash suppressor is a functional component of gun through which bullet passes when gun is fired. (HARRIS and HOLDER WHITE, concurring.)

People v. Mason

People v. Mason
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Guilty Pleas
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (4th) 130946
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Champaign Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
TURNER
Pursuant to negotiated plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to criminal sexual abuse. Court erred in denying Defendant's request to withdraw his guilty plea, as defense counsel's Rule 604(d) certificate is deficient, because it fails to show counsel consulted with Defendant about his contentions of error related to his guilty plea AND sentence. A Rule 604(d) certificate which uses the Rule's verbatim language with the "or" rather than "and" does not precisely comply with Rule 604(d). (POPE and KNECHT, concurring.)

People v. Dye

People v. Dye
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (4th) 130799
Decision Date: 
Monday, August 3, 2015
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Vermilion Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
APPLETON
Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of threatening a public official, and sentenced to 3 years in prison. Considering evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution, no rational trier of fact could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant made a "true threat". Defendant's statement to public defender, "I'm gonna get you", was ambiguous as to whether intended meaning was violent or nonviolent retribution, and nothing in context of threat resolves ambiguity.(POPE and STEIGMANN, concurring.)

Public Act 99-212

Topic: 
Speeding and supervision
(Walsh, D-Joliet; Mulroe, D-Chicago) does the following: (1) Creates the offense of aggravated special-speed limit for going 26 or more mph but less than 35 (Class B misdemeanor) and for going more than 35 mph in a school zone or highway-construction zone (Class A misdemeanor). (2) Prohibits supervision for aggravated speed in a highway-construction zone. (It doesn't change the blanket prohibition against supervision for speeding in a school zone.) (3) Allows supervision to be given for 26 or more mph over the posted speed limit if the driver has never been convicted of this offense or been given supervision for it. (4) Prohibits supervision from being given if driving more than 26 or more mph over the posted speed limit if it was done in an urban district. (For more, see IL Law Update on page 18 of the August issue of the Illinois Bar Journal.) Effective January 1, 2016.
View Full Text of Legislation

Public Act 99-190

Topic: 
Consular notification by foreign nationals
(Drury, D-Highwood; Raoul, D-Chicago) requires that a law enforcement officer in charge of custodial facilities must ensure that a foreign national is advised within 48 hours of booking or detention that he or she has the right to communicate with the appropriate consulate as required by the Vienna Convention. Effective January 1, 2016.
View Full Text of Legislation

People v. Bowen

People v. Bowen
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Possession of Weapons
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 132046
Decision Date: 
Friday, July 31, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
McBRIDE
Defendant was charged with possession of contraband (per indictment, a dangerous weapon, a sharp metal object) in a penal institution, and was convicted, after bench trial, and sentenced to 6 years. A large 7" sharpened metal shank was found hidden in Defendant's cell. In sentencing, court was not considering merely that Defendant possessed contraband, was used descriptive language of type of weapon and location of its discovery, which are proper sentencing considerations. Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction, given officer's positive and unambiguous testimony about nature of shank. Circumstances of Defendant's interrogation were not inherently coercive as in custodial interrogations, which would have required Miranda warnings. (PALMER and GORDON, concurring.)

People v. Crabtree

People v. Crabtree
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Probation
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (5th) 130155
Decision Date: 
Thursday, July 30, 2015
District: 
5th Dist.
Division/County: 
Richland Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
GOLDENHERSH
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, and sentenced to 180 days in county jail and 48 months probation. As conditions of probation, Defendant was ordered to refrain from communicating with or contacting via Internet any non-relative under age 18, to refrain from using social networking sites, and to not use any computer "scrub" software on a computer he uses. Even though computer was not used in underlying offense, conditions are reasonably related to goals of deterrence, protection of public, and rehabilitation. Conditions are limited and do not completely bar Defendant from computer use.(CATES and CHAPMAN, concurring.)

People v. Campbell

People v. Campbell
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Confrontation
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 131196
Decision Date: 
Monday, July 27, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HARRIS
Defendant was convicted of first degree murder after jury trial and sentenced to natural life in prison. Admission of witness' entire grand jury testimony did not violate right to confrontation, or requirement of Section 115-10.1 of Code of Criminal Procedure that witness be subject to cross-examination as to her statement. Counsel for both parties had opportunity to question witness at trial about her prior inconsistent testimony, and witness willingly responded to questions at trial. Although defense counsel did not formally present alibi defense, he was allowed to present witnesses who testified that Defendant was at home when shooting occurred. Thus, no prejudice from defense counsel's failure to formally present alibi defense. (DELORT and CONNORS, concurring.)

People v. Jackson

People v. Jackson
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Collateral Estoppel
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 123695
Decision Date: 
Monday, July 27, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed and remanded.
Justice: 
HARRIS
Defendant was found guilty but mentally ill, after bench trial, of first degree murder. Appellate court then reversed circuit court and remanded for new trial, holding that court adopted prosecutorial role when questioning defense expert and by relying on matters based on private knowledge of court outside the record. Retrial of Defendant for first degree murder does not offend prohibition against double jeopardy because judgment in initial trial was reversed due to trial errors, not evidentiary insufficiency. Collateral estoppel does not apply due to absence of different causes of action and a final adjudication on merits. (DELORT and CUNNINGHAM, concurring.)