Criminal Law

People v. Murphy

People v. Murphy
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Burglary
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (4th) 130265
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Macon Co.
Holding: 
Judgment vacated.
Justice: 
TURNER
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of two counts of burglary. State failed to proved that Defendant entered pawn shop with intent to commit therein a theft of stolen property. Defendant pawned electronic game equipment and camera, later identified as items which had been stolen from homes, at a pawn shop. Defendant admitted buying merchandise "on the street", but denied going into a home and stealing items, and never admitted that he knew items had been stolen. State was required to prove Defendant knowingly obtained control over stolen property knowing property to have been stolen or under circumstances as would reasonably induce Defendant to believe it was stolen. (KNECHT, concurring; STEIGMANN, dissenting.)

People v. Hood

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
People v. Hood
Criminal Court
Waiver
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
March 25, 2015
Docket Number: 
No. 118581
District: 
1st Dist.
This case presents question as to whether defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to confront witness against him at evidence deposition, where defendant’s counsel attended said deposition and cross-examined witness/alleged victim, where counsel agreed that she had waived defendant’s appearance at said deposition, and where said waiver did not appear on record. Appellate Court, in reversing defendant’s conviction on charge of aggravated battery to senior citizen, found that there should have been some mention of defendant’s waiver of his right to confront witness during said deposition, and that there was no showing that defendant knew of either his right to confront witness or consequences of waiving said right, or that defendant had acted voluntarily in waiving said right. Dissenting Justice found no plain error, where witness/victim’s testimony during deposition was subject to cross-examination by defense counsel.

People v. Salem

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Criminal Court
Jurisdiction
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
March 25, 2015
Docket Number: 
Nos. 118693 & 118694 Cons.
District: 
3rd Dist. Rule 23 Order
This case presents question as to whether Appellate Court had jurisdiction to consider defendant’s appeal of his conviction on charge of unlawful possession of stolen motor vehicle, where defendant failed to file timely motion for new trial within 30 days following entry of his guilty verdict, but did file notice of appeal within 30 days of denial of his motion seeking new trial. Appellate Court found that it lacked jurisdiction because motion for new trial was filed more than 30 days after jury verdict. Fact that state had responded to substantive issues in motion for new trial did not require different result. In his petition for leave to appeal, defendant argued that trial court had jurisdiction to act on motion for new trial, where said motion was filed within 30 days of his sentencing date. (Dissent filed.)

People v. Guzman

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
People v. Guzman
Criminal Court
Guilty Plea
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
March 25, 2015
Docket Number: 
No. 118749
District: 
3rd Dist.
This case presents question as to whether trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, where defendant had not been previously informed by either trial court or his counsel of any potential immigration consequences generated by entry of guilty plea. Appellate Court, in affirming trial court, found that trial court’s failure to admonish defendant about potential immigration consequences under section 113-8 of Code of Criminal Procedure did not, by itself, call into question voluntariness of guilty plea. Moreover, Appellate Court noted that defendant had failed to state in his motion to withdraw guilty plea that he was subject to any potential immigration penalties, or that he would not have pleaded guilty if trial court had admonished him of immigration consequences.

People v. Lerma

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
People v. Lerma
Criminal Court
Expert Witness
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
March 25, 2015
Docket Number: 
No. 118496
District: 
1st Dist.
This case presents question as to whether trail court properly excluded testimony of defendant’s proposed expert witness on issue regarding reliability of eyewitness identification testimony, where record showed that there was only one eyewitness to instant murder, and where trial court previously rejected defendant’s similar motion regarding different expert witness on ground that said expert’s testimony was not needed since instant eyewitness, defendant and victim were acquaintances. Appellate Court, in reversing defendant’s conviction, found that defendant was entitled to new trial since trial court had failed to scrutinize, weigh, or consider proposed testimony from expert on eyewitness identification before denying his proffered testimony. In its petition for leave to appeal, State argued that expert testimony on reliability of eyewitness testimony is unnecessary since witness’s ability to identify offender can be explored on cross-examination.

People v. Thompson

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
People v. Thompson
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
March 25, 2015
Docket Number: 
No. 118667
District: 
5th Dist.
This case presents question as to whether trial court properly admitted lay opinion testimony of four police officers who identified defendant from video recording of attempt to procure anhydrous ammonia. Appellate Court, in reversing defendant’s conviction on charge of illegal procurement of anhydrous ammonia, found that officers’ identifications of defendant as culprit in video were inadmissible since they did not satisfy requirements of Starks, 456 N.E.2d 262, where: (1) officers did not show that they had better perspective than jury to interpret instant surveillance video; and (2) no officer indicated that defendant’s appearance had changed from date of crime to date of trial.

People v. Cherry

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
People v. Cherry
Criminal Court
Armed Violence
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
March 25, 2015
Docket Number: 
No. 118728
District: 
5th Dist.
This case presents question as to whether defendant’s conviction on charge of armed violence can be predicated on offense of aggravated battery, where underlying battery charge was based on defendant having caused great bodily harm. Appellate Court, in vacating defendant’s armed violence conviction and remanding matter to trial court for new sentence on aggravated battery charge, agreed with defendant that aggravated battery is specifically prohibited from being predicate felony for armed violence offense under 720 ILCS 5/33A-2(b), because armed violence statute excludes (as predicate offenses) offenses that make possession or use of dangerous weapon either an element of base offense or an aggravated or enhanced version of said offense. In its petition for leave to appeal, State argued that aggravated battery based on causing great bodily harm is not excluded since presence or use of weapons is not element of said offense.

People v. Clark

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
People v. Clark
Criminal Court
Aggravated Vehicular Hijacking
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
March 25, 2015
Docket Number: 
No. 118845
District: 
1st Dist.
This case presents question as to whether trial court properly found defendant guilty of uncharged offenses of aggravated vehicular hijacking with dangerous weapon other than firearm (720 ILCS 5/18-4(a)(3)) and armed robbery with dangerous weapon other than firearm (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(1)), where trial court believed that such offenses were lesser-included offenses to charged offenses of aggravated vehicular hijacking while armed with firearm (720 ILCS 5/18-4(a)(4)) and armed robbery while armed with firearm (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2)). Appellate Court, in vacating and reducing defendant’s convictions, found that instant uncharged offenses were not lesser-included offenses of charged offenses because charging instrument did not permit inference that defendant used weapon other than firearm during incident.

Owens v. Duncan

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Owens v. Duncan
Criminal Court
Due Process
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 14-1419
Decision Date: 
March 23, 2015
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his murder conviction on ground that state-court judge, who found defendant guilty on said charge, based his guilty finding on fact that defendant was aware that victim was drug dealer, where evidence of said fact was not contained in record. Moreover, said error was not harmless, since: (1) no physical evidence linked defendant to murder; (2) identification of defendant as culprit was weak; (3) no evidence indicated that defendant had known victim or had used illegal drugs that were found on victim; and (4) trial judge based guilty verdict only upon his unfounded belief that defendant had known victim as drug dealer and had relied on said knowledge to kill victim.

budget issues

Topic: 
Court reporters
The immediate issue of funding for court reporters, childcare assistance, and the Department of Corrections is being negotiated by Governor Rauner and the four legislative leaders. As was reported in the Pantagraph, “A child care program for low-income parents needs $300 million to make it through the end of the year. The Illinois Department of Corrections says it will begin running out of money to pay guards in mid-April. And, funds to pay court reporters are running dry, potentially resulting in a stoppage of court activity.” This week I was told that legislators have noticed that they are not hearing as much from constituents on the shortage for court reporting funding as the other two problems. I was told that they were unaware of the impact that this would have on county detention of defendants awaiting trial and possible Speedy Trial problems. If you have an opportunity, you may wish to bring this up with your state senator and representative. Their telephone numbers may be found on the General Assembly website at www.ilga.gov/ Thank you.
View Full Text of Legislation