Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from a conviction for violating an order of protection, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict and that his trial counsel was ineffective for tendering certain jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed, finding that there was no viable basis for counsel to have moved for a directed verdict at the close of evidence and that while the tender of two instructions was objectively unreasonable, defendant did not demonstrate any prejudice from his attorney’s error in tendering jury instructions that did not explicitly state the knowledge requirement with respect to his conduct. (DeARMOND and ZENOFF, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder for the death of his eight-year-old son and was sentenced to 100 years in prison on one count and life in prison on the second count. On appeal, defendant argue that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed a co-defendant to invoke her fifth amendment rights despite her agreement to testify at defendant’s trial as a condition of her guilty plea, that trial counsel was ineffective for failure to move for a continuance and by failing to request a jury instruction on a lesser included offense, and that one of defendant’s convictions must be vacated under the one-act, one-crime doctrine. The appellate court affirmed, but modified the judgment by vacating the conviction on the first count, which was the less serious first-degree murder count, on the basis that it violated the one-act, one-crime doctrine. (VANCIL and CAVANAGH, concurring)

Defendant was convicted by a jury of resisting a peace officer and sentenced to 48 hours of jail time and ordered to pay fines and costs. On appeal, defendant argued that the State failed to prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in omitting two essential elements of the offense in the jury instructions. The appellate court found no error, concluding that the trial court applied the correct version of the statute that defendant was charged under and that there was no error in the jury instructions given. (STEIGMANN and CAVANAGH, concurring)

Defendant appealed from his conviction for first-degree murder and the appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court violated defendant’s right to a public trial when it excluded his mother from the courtroom. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, finding that the defendant’s right to a public trial was not violated because the courtroom remained open to the public even though defendant’s mother was temporarily excluded. (THEIS, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, HOLDER WHITE, CUNNINGHAM, and ROCHFORD, concurring)