Criminal Law

People v. Stevens

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
People v. Stevens
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
September 25, 2013
Docket Number: 
No. 116300
District: 
1st Dist.
This case presents question as to whether, in instant prosecution on aggravated criminal sexual assault charge, trial court properly allowed State to cross-examine defendant on details of separate pending sexual assault case involving different victim. Appellate Court, in upholding admission of such evidence, noted that defendant raised issue that sexual encounter was consensual, and that instant cross-examination was permissible to challenge defendant’s consent defense. Fact that defendant had not addressed separate sexual assault case in his direct examination did not require different result since defendant’s decision to take witness stand did not limit State’s ability to impeach him with relevant evidence.

People v. Denson

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
People v. Denson
Criminal Court
Appellate Procedure
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
September 25, 2013
Docket Number: 
No. 116231
District: 
2nd Dist.
This case presents question as to whether defendant properly preserved for appellate review issue regarding admission of certain statements made by two co-conspirators where, although defendant did not object to said statements once they were admitted at trial, defendant filed written objection to admission of said statements in response to State’s motion in limine seeking their admission, and where defendant included said issue in his post-trial motion. Appellate Court found that: (1) defendant had forfeited said issue because he had not objected to said evidence at trial; and (2) defendant could not rely on his written objection to State’s motion in limine as means to preserve issue for review. Appellate Court further rejected defendant’s claim that statements did not qualify as co-conspirator exception to hearsay rule, even though defendant argued that said statements concerned only restatements of past occurrences that did not further any objective of conspiracy.

People v. Westmoreland

People v. Westmoreland
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Weapons
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (2d) 120082
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Du Page Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded.
Justice: 
HUTCHINSON
Defendant was convicted of armed violence for beating a child with a belt. A belt is not normally used as a dangerous weapon of a bludgeon-like character, nor is it inherently a dangerous weapon, and it is not commonly identified as a weapon. Thus, belt was not a category III dangerous weapon, and armed violence conviction cannot stand. (SCHOSTOK and HUDSON, concurring.)

People v. Wilson

People v. Wilson
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Post-Conviction Petitions
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 112302
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
MASON
Defendant was convicted of first degree murder. Although majority of issues raised in postconviction petition were previously raised and decided, res judicata does not bar postconviction claim because petition presents arguable claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to present witness' testimony as to Defendant's actions prior to shooting. Thus, court improperly entered summary dismissal of petition. (HYMAN and PIERCE, concurring.)

People v. Lopez

People v. Lopez
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Fourth Amendment
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 111819
Decision Date: 
Friday, September 13, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
GORDON
A person is not seized, for purposes of fourth amendment, when person is sitting in a stationary vehicle on a public street or alley, and two officers approach the vehicle on foot, with one officer walking toward driver's side and one toward passenger's side, and ask to view the person's driver's license and when there was no evidence that the officers drew their guns, used a commanding tone of voice, or used their vehicle or bodies to block the vehicle from exiting. That two officers approached vehicle on foot from opposite sides does not transform an encounter into a seizure, if no evidence that officers were boxing in the vehicle. (REYES, concurring; HALL, dissenting.)

U.S. v. Williams

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Williams
Criminal Court
Search and Seizure
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-3864
Decision Date: 
September 24, 2013
Federal District: 
W.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded
In prosecution on unlawful possession of firearm charge, Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress firearm seized from defendant during encounter in which defendant, along with others, were stopped and searched in parking lot, after police had received anonymous tip from individual claiming that group of 25 individuals had congregated in parking lot and were acting loudly and displaying handguns. Record showed that group had shrunk to eight to ten individuals by time police had arrived on scene, and Ct. found that officers could properly stop said individuals based on information contained in tip, as well as fact that parking lot was located in known crime area. However, officer could not subsequently frisk defendant based only on fact that defendant avoided eye contact with officer, had his hands in his pocket or waist area, and had started to walk away upon officer’s arrival, since there was nothing in defendant’s behavior that indicated that he had weapon or posed some danger to officers. (Partial dissent filed.)

People v. Legore

People v. Legore
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (2d) 111038
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Lake Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
SPENCE
Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. State's comments about witness being an "uncorroborated witness" did not shift burden of proof to Defendant; it was an isolated statement. Remarks either were proper response to closing argument or were not reversible error, as they were not so inflammatory or so flagrant that they denied the Defendant a fair trial. Conflicts in evidence as to specific circumstances of case are for jury to resolve. (McLAREN and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)

People v. James

People v. James
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Confrontation
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 112110
Decision Date: 
Friday, September 13, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
PALMER
Court properly limited defense counsel's cross-examination of co-Defendant. Court properly prevented inquiry into specific sentence for first-degree murder, as Defendant was facing the same charge as his co-defendant. Informing jury of specific sentence offered to co-defendant would have violated court's in limine ruling, and adequate information was given to satisfy Defendant's confrontation rights and as to relevant areas of impeachment. (McBRIDE and TAYLOR, concurring.)

People v. LeFlore

People v. LeFlore
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Right to Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 100659
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
District: 
2nd Dist.
Division/County: 
Kane Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
HUTCHINSON
Defendant was not properly admonished under Rule 401(a) prior to waiving his right to counsel, Admonishing a defendant as to possible penalties for most serious crime with which charged is especially important where, due to prior convictions, a defendant faces mandatory Class X sentencing. Defendant was not informed of the maximum sentence of 30 years as Class X sentence, and was twice misinformed of sentencing range.(McLAREN, concurring; BIRKETT, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

People v. Johnson

People v. Johnson
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Habeas Corpus
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL 114639
Decision Date: 
Thursday, September 19, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Circuit court and appellate court reversed in part; remanded with directions.
Justice: 
FREEMAN
The $50 State's Attorney fee in Section 4-2002.1(a) of Counties Code does not apply to a Defendant's Section 2-1401 petition for relief from judgment, but only to various types of habeas corpus proceedings. (KILBRIDE, THOMAS, GARMAN, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)