Criminal Law

Public Act 98-1025

Topic: 
Unfitness issues in criminal cases
(Haine, D-Alton; Sims, D-Chicago) provides that a person conducting a fitness examination must make his or her notes, other evaluations reviewed or relied upon by the testifying witness, and any videotaped interviews available to another examiner of the defendant upon written request. Requires a forensic interview to be videotaped unless impractical. Allows an examiner to use these materials as part of a diagnosis or explanation and prohibits disclosure of the examination's contents except as otherwise provided by law. Senate Bill 2801 also removes the ability of the court to order placement in a non-secure setting within the Department of Human Services if a defendant is found unfit to stand trial or acquitted by reason of insanity. For an unfit defendant charged with a misdemeanor, it changes the period of time in which the defendant, with treatment, may be expected to attain fitness for purposes of fitness determinations from one year to no longer than the length of sentence if convicted of the most serious offense. If an unfit defendant refuses psychotropic medication, it allows the medication to be administered over the defendant's objections as provided in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code. Effective immediately except that discovery section is effective January 1, 2015.
View Full Text of Legislation

In re Commitment of Rendon

In re Commitment of Rendon
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 123090
Decision Date: 
Thursday, August 21, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 4th Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
LAVIN
Respondent was civilly committed as a "sexually violent person". Court later conditionally released him, but later revoked release on State's petition, concluding that "safety of others" required revocation. State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that "safety of others" required revocation. Evidence showed that Respondent showed improved behavior and was appropriately responding to treatment, and did not show that he was at time of hearing a threat to safety of others. (FITZGERALD SMITH and EPSTEIN, concurring.)

People v. Bell

People v. Bell
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Postconviction Petitions
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (3d) 120637
Decision Date: 
Thursday, August 21, 2014
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Peoria Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HOLDRIDGE
Defendant filed pro se petition for postconviction relief which advanced to second-stage proceedings. Appointed counsel properly filed a Rule 651(c) certificate. Counsel was not required to again satisfy mandates of Rule 651(c) as to Defendant's subsequent pro se filings. Appointed counsel's duties under Rule 651(c) were limited to those claims made in his original pro se motion for postconviction relief. (LYTTON and SCHMIDT, concurring.)

U.S. v. Scalzo

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Scalzo
Criminal Court
Restitution
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-3354
Decision Date: 
August 21, 2014
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed
In prosecution in bank fraud and money laundering charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing $679,737.23 restitution order that was based in part on two Credit Union loans that defendant generated, even though defendant asserted that loans were not criminal in nature and that any losses were caused by borrower’s defaults and not his conduct. Defendant had pleaded guilty to Information that included said loans in description of bank fraud scheme, and defendant could not challenge loans’ inclusion in charged scheme at this juncture of proceedings. Moreover, Dist. Ct. specifically found that both loans played significant role in bank fraud scheme by obscuring fraudulent nature of three earlier loans generated by defendant.

People v. Chai

People v. Chai
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
resisting arrest
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (2d) 121234
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Du Page Co.
Holding: 
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Justice: 
JORGENSEN
Jury convicted Defendant of criminal trespass to real property and resisting a peace officer, after he lost his temper and swore after DMV staff refused to allow his wife to take road test. Evidence was insufficient to support criminal-trespass conviction, as State failed to prove notice element of offense, that Defendant had received prior notice from owner or occupant that his entry upon property was forbidden. State failed to provide evidence that an owner or occupant authorized or requested police to provide Defendant with notice that he was never to return to DMV. No error in court refusing to define "knowingly" as to charge of resisting a police officer, as "knowingly" was within common knowledge of jury.(BURKE and McLAREN, concurring.)

People v. Abdur-Rahim

People v. Abdur-Rahim
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Motions to Suppress
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (3d) 130558
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
LaSalle Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
LYTTON
Court improperly denied motions to suppress of Defendant was was charged with unlawful possession of cannabis with intent to deliver. Fifty-minute detention after initial traffic stop for following too closely and improper lane usage was unlawful extension of stop. Upon issuing warning tickets and resolving issue of Defendant being on terrorist watch list, troopers needed independent reason to lawfully extend duration of stop.Trooper failed to supply articulable facts necessary to support a fourth amendment intrusion, as he was vague as to whether he smelled odor of burnt cannabis. Facts support only hunch or suspicion of illegal activity, and not reasonable and articulable suspicion of trafficking cannabis. (McDADE and O'BRIEN, concurring.)

U.S. v. Banks

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Banks
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-3527
Decision Date: 
August 20, 2014
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 3-year term of incarceration on unlawful possession of firearm charge, even though defendant argued that Dist. Ct. failed to consider his main mitigation argument that he played only minor role in offense by only briefly handling firearm. Record showed that Dist. Ct. actually considered said argument, but found that it was outweighed by seriousness of offense and defendant’s criminal history.

U.S. v. Davis

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Davis
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-3297
Decision Date: 
August 20, 2014
Federal District: 
C.D. Ill
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 41-month term of incarceration on mail fraud charge stemming from scheme to divert medical-based grant funds to personal use for defendant and her family members. While defendant argued that Dist. Ct. did not adequately consider her mental illness related to her diagnosis of bipolar/depression disorders, record showed that Dist. Ct. adequately considered said factor by specifically mentioning defendant’s mental illness six times in nine pages of transcript that covered defendant’s sentence.

U.S. v. Moore

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Moore
Criminal Court
Jury
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-2905
Decision Date: 
August 19, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed and vacated in part and remanded
Defendant was entitled to new trial on section 924(c) charge alleging unlawful use of firearm during and in relation to crime of violence, where record showed that: (1) jury was deadlocked on closely-related predicate crime of violence stemming from allegation that defendant stole victim’s car while threatening her with gun; (2) during jury’s deliberation, Dist. Ct. improperly solicited partial verdict before jurors indicated that no further deliberations would be useful; and (3) Dist. Ct.’s actions may have resulted in premature guilty verdict on section 924(c) charge where jury was still deliberating on closely-related firearm charge. Ct further noted that Dist. Ct.’s action may have prevented jury from appreciating fact that guilty verdict on section 924(c) charge was logically irreconcilable with its continued deliberation on deadlocked firearms charge.

People v. Esparza

People v. Esparza
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
resisting arrest
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (2d) 130149
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kane Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
BURKE
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of escape and resisting or obstructing a peace officer. It was proper for Defendant, who was 16 when he initially fled from home detention but was 17 when arrested, to be prosecuted in criminal court. Escape is a continuing offense, which encompassed Defendant's removal of his electronic home monitoring ankle device at age 16, and also his failure to return to custody until age 17. Court properly imposed 180-day jail term on both offenses, and 30-month probation sentence only on escape offense. (HUTCHINSON and BIRKETT, concurring.)