Criminal Law

People v. Hasselbring

People v. Hasselbring
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Jury Deliberations
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (4th) 131128
Decision Date: 
Monday, November 24, 2014
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Champaign Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
POPE
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of aggravated driving with a drug, substance, or compound in his breath, blood, or urine. State's expert testified benzoylecgonine is not a drug listed as a controlled substance, and State did not argue or present evidence showing that it is a compound. Jury asked whether it qualified as a substance. Trial judge's answer, "yes, cocaine metabolite qualifies as a drug, substance, or intoxicating compound" was incorrect, in conflict with evidence presented, and served to direct verdict in State's favor, could have confused the jury, and resolved ultimate issue for jury. No double jeopardy impediment to retrial, as rational jury could have found that a substance resulting from Defendant's use of cocaine before driving was present in Defendant's system. (KNECHT and TURNER, concurring.)

People v. Howe

People v. Howe
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Sexually Dangerous Persons
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (4th) 140054
Decision Date: 
Monday, November 24, 2014
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Scott Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
TURNER
State filed petition to have Defendant declared a sexually dangerous person, which court granted. State did not violate Defendant's due process rights, per Brady v. Maryland, in failing to disclose victim's statement until third day of trial. Statement did not prejudice Defendant, and statement did not put whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in outcome. Principles of Brady v. Maryland apply in proceedings where Defendant is sought to be declared a sexually dangerous person. (APPLETON and KNECHT, concurring.)

People v. Leavitt

People v. Leavitt
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Indictment
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 12-1323
Decision Date: 
Friday, November 21, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
REYES
Court improperly entered order dismissing, on statute of limitations grounds, indictment against police officer for official misconduct and aggravated battery of two 15-year-old juvenile detainees. Indictment was properly returned prior to expiration of statutory period, and subsequent sealing of indictment had no impact on date indictment was returned for statute of limitations purposes. State met its burden of providing justification for 12 1/2 month delay between indictment and Defendant's arrest. Balancing of Barker factors shows that Defendant was not deprived of right to speedy trial. (LAMPKIN and ROCHFORD, concurring.)

People v. Salazar

People v. Salazar
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Accountability Theory
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (2d) 130047
Decision Date: 
Thursday, November 20, 2014
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kendall Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
BIRKETT
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted first-degree murder, all based on theory of accountability. Evidence supported jury's guilty verdicts, as it was clear from testimony that Defendant piloted his vehicle in manner to aid in commission of shooting and kept vehicle in a stationary position until firearm was emptied while passenger fired semiautomatic weapon, firing each round individually, 11 separate times. Jury could infer that Defendant, after piloting vehicle to put passenger in a good position to shoot at victims in vehicle, waited till shooting was over before fleeing the scene. Jury instruction for attempted murder was not confusing or misleading, as there were two attempted murder charges involving two different victims whose names were listed on the instruction. (BURKE and HUTCHINSON, concurring.)

People v. Clark

People v. Clark
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 123494
Decision Date: 
Thursday, November 20, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 4th Div.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded.
Justice: 
EPSTEIN
Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of uncharged offenses, finding they were lesser-included offenses of charged offenses of aggravated vehicular hijacking while armed with firearm and armed robbery while armed with firearm. Offenses of which Defendant was convicted, aggravated vehicular hijacking with a dangerous weapon other than a firearm and armed robbery with a dangerous weapon other than a firearm were not lesser-included offenses because charging instruments did not permit inference that Defendant used a weapon other than a firearm during the offense. Thus, convictions are reduced to vehicular hijacking and robbery, and remanded for resentencing. (FITZGERALD SMITH and HOWSE, concurring.)

People v. Holt

People v. Holt
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Fitness
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL 116989
Decision Date: 
Thursday, November 20, 2014
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kendall Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court affirmed.
Justice: 
KARMEIER
Where defense counsel is convinced, and the evidence clearly indicates,that Defendant is unfit to stand trial, defense counsel is not constitutionally obligated to argue for a finding of fitness in deference to Defendant's wishes. If defense counsel were to argue for finding of fitness in such case, counsel would violate duty to client and would suborn violation of due process. (GARMAN, FREEMAN, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

In re Detention of New

In re Detention of New
Illinois Supreme Court
Civil Court
Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL 116306
Decision Date: 
Thursday, November 20, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court affirmed; remanded.
Justice: 
THEIS
Respondent was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault of boys, ages 12 and 14, in 1987 and 1995. State filed petition to have Respondent civilly committed as sexually violent under Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act. Diagnosis of "hebephilia" used in academic literature (paraphilia not otherwise specified and sexually attracted to adolescent males) is subject to Frye analysis and hearing requirements, to determine whether diagnosis has gained general acceptance in psychological and psychiatric communities. (GARMAN, FREEMAN, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, KARMEIER, and BURKE, concurring.)

Cordrey v. Illinois Prisoner Review Board

Cordrey v. Illinois Prisoner Review Board
Illinois Supreme Court
Civil Court
Mandamus
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL 117155
Decision Date: 
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Holding: 
Writ of mandamus denied.
Justice: 
THOMAS
Mandamus petitioner, who had been incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, and challenged prison practice of "violation at the door", when prison fails to release inmate on date schedule for Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR) to begin because inmate is unable to fulfill Prison Review Board's mandate for release, in this case for electronic monitoring. Inmate failed to establish clear right to demand that Respondents release him to serve his MSR at a suitable host location outside of prison, when no suitable location has been found. DOC was unable to find placement due to inmate's status as a sex offender, rather than his status as indigent.(GARMAN, FREEMAN, KILBRIDE, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

People v. Denson

People v. Denson
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Forfeiture
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL 116231
Decision Date: 
Thursday, November 20, 2014
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kane Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court affirmed.
Justice: 
THOMAS
Defendant was convicted of first degree murder. Defendant appealed admissibility of statements of witnesses. Critical consideration in forfeiture analysis is not which party initiated in limine litigation, but whether issue being raised was litigated in limine. Doctrine of forfeiture exists to ensure that, whether by contemporaneous trial objection or in limine objection, trial court is given full and fair opportunity to consider and rule upon issue. A party in a criminal case does not necessarily forfeit review of contested statements by failing to make contemporaneous trial objection. Defendant in criminal case must raise objection in either motion in limine or in objection at trial, and in posttrial motion, to preserve issue for review. (GARMAN, FREEMAN, KILBRIDE, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

U.S. v. Velazquez

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Velazquez
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 14-1034 & 14-1153 Cons.
Decision Date: 
November 20, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 136-month term of incarceration on mail fraud charge under circumstances, where defendant had refused to appear at sentencing hearing and where defendant’s retained counsel had attempted to withdraw on two occasions, with one occasion being during sentencing hearing. Dist. Ct. properly denied first motion to withdraw, where record showed that any breakdown in attorney-client relationship had been repaired. Moreover, although defendant’s sister reported during sentencing hearing that she had filed ARDC complaint against defendant’s counsel, Dist. Ct. was not required to grant any motion to withdraw based on said information, since Dist. Ct. could properly view said motion as attempt to further delay defendant’s sentencing, where defendant had previously refused to appear at several sentence-related hearings, and on one occasion had incurred injuries to himself by resisting marshals’ attempt to forcibly bring him from his cell to one such hearing. Also, record supported Dist. Ct.’s imposition of sentence during defendant’s absence, where defendant had previously indicated on several occasions that he would not consent to his participation in sentencing proceeding.