Criminal Law

People v. Montes

People v. Montes
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (2d) 111132
Decision Date: 
Friday, June 28, 2013
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kane Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
JORGENSEN
Defendant was convicted in absentia of attempted first-degree murder and aggravated discharge of a firearm. Court's admonishment that a failure to appear at any hearing could result in hearing proceeding in his absence was sufficient admonishment that his failure to appear at any scheduled court hearing, including trial, could result in waiver of his rights. Court properly allowed jury to consider audio recording of exchange with informant, as witnesses' testimony, including that witness turned on the recording device given him by FBI, was sufficient foundation. Court properly permitted jury to use transcript of recording as a guide, as witness identified the speakers on recording. (HUTCHINSON and SCHOSTOK, concurring.

People v. Anderson

People v. Anderson
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Severance
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (2d) 111183
Decision Date: 
Thursday, June 27, 2013
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
McHenry Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
BURKE
Defendant was convicted of unlawful delivery of less than one gram of heroin, and attempted unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Defendant was arrested after delivering heroin to undercover officer in exchange for a firearm and ammunition. Proximity in time and location, identity of evidence linking offenses, and common method in offenses rendered severance of charges inappropriate. Counsel's decision to refuse stipulation to Defendant's felon status, and decision not to seek stipulation and modification of pattern instruction for IPI 18.07 were matters of trial strategy. (McLAREN and BIRKETT, concurring.)

U.S. v. Harmon

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Harmon
Criminal Court
Speedy Trial
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-1502
Decision Date: 
July 11, 2013
Federal District: 
S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
In prosecution on marijuana conspiracy charges, Dist. Ct. did not violate defendant’s constitutional right to speedy trial, even though Dist. Ct. granted govt.’s motion for one-month delay in trial to investigate charge that defendant had intimidated witness scheduled to testify at his upcoming trial. Instant one-month delay was not presumptively prejudicial, and instant delay was justified where evidence of defendant’s potential intimidation was only recently discovered, and where such evidence had potential to establish defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Fact that govt. used extra month to gather other evidence against defendant and to interview witnesses in effort to better prepare for trial did not require different result.

People v. Sanchez

People v. Sanchez
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (2d) 120445
Decision Date: 
Friday, June 21, 2013
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kane Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
SCHOSTOK
Defendant was convicted of identity theft of "credit, money, goods, services, or other property", from her use of a social security number that was not hers to qualify for a job which she held for 17 months. No evidence was presented showing that Defendant knew that the number belonged to another person, which is the requisite mens rea for identity theft, and thus her conviction cannot be sustained. Under language of indictment, possessing a fraudulent identity card is not a lesser included offense of identity theft, and thus court cannot substitute a conviction on proposed lesser included offense of possessing a fraudulent ID card, but must reverse conviction outright. (HUTCHINSON, concurring; BIRKETT, dissenting.)

Simpson v. U.S.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Simpson v. U.S.
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-2373
Decision Date: 
July 10, 2013
Federal District: 
Application for Order Authorizing Dist. Ct. to Entertain Successive Petition for Collateral Relief
Holding: 
Application denied
Ct. of Appeals denied application by defendant seeking order authorizing Dist. Ct. to entertain successive petition for collateral relief that challenged his mandatory minimum 240-month sentence for drug offenses, where defendant asserted that Dist. Ct., as opposed to jury, had determined that his conduct met requirements for said mandatory minimum sentence. While recent U.S. Supreme Ct. decision in Alleyne, No. 11-9335, supported defendant’s claim, U.S. Supreme Ct. failed to declare that said rule applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. Moreover, drug quantity findings by jury that were made in defendant’s trial would have supported imposition of instant sentence.

Public Act 98-61

Topic: 
Juvenile Court jurisdiction
(Currie, D-Chicago; Steans, D-Chicago) raises the age of jurisdiction for juvenile court from 17 to 18 for most felony offenses. The jurisdictional age for most misdemeanor offenses was raised from 17 to 18 several years ago. Effective for arrests made on or after Jan. 1, 2014.
View Full Text of Legislation

Public Act 98-62

Topic: 
Juvenile justice
(Tracy, R-Quincy; Clayborne, D- E. St. Louis) amends the “continuance under supervision” section (Section 615) to track the procedure followed in adult criminal court. It does the following: (1) Leaves current law so that a case may be continued under supervision before a finding of delinquency with the approval of the state’s attorney. (2) Amends § 615 to allow the court to continue case under supervision after a finding of delinquency. It adds the same criteria from the supervision statute in the Criminal Code that the judge must consider before ordering supervision. Regardless of when this happens, current law is retained that prohibits a case from being continued under supervision for any forcible felony, a Class X felony, and first-degree murder. Effective January 1, 2014.
View Full Text of Legislation

U.S. v. Bey

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Bey
Criminal Court
Conspiracy
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-1592
Decision Date: 
July 9, 2013
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
In prosecution on drug conspiracy charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting out-of-court statement made by alleged third-party co-conspirator under co-conspirator exception to hearsay rule where disputed statement concerned conduct between third-party and another individual that did not implicate defendant in conspiracy. Alternatively, record contained sufficient evidence to establish existence of conspiracy to support admission of instant out-of-court statement, where record showed that defendant served as middleman between third-party drug seller and another individual who purchased drugs, and where third party paid cash to defendant to compensate him for his efforts at facilitating said sale.

People v. Butler

People v. Butler
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 120923
Decision Date: 
Friday, June 28, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
CUNNINGHAM
Defendant was sentenced to 80 years imprisonment for first-degree murder. Court properly considered all factors in aggravation and mitigation including Defendant's history as a juvenile, his youth, and troubled childhood; and that murder victim was innocent victim who did not participate in gangs or narcotics. Firearm sentence enhancement statute (25 years) applied to sentence is not unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied. Although sentence enhancement allows for wide range of sentences, scope of range is clear and definite, and court has no discretion to decide whether to impose it. (ROCHFORD and DELORT, concurring.)

People v. Bennett

People v. Bennett
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Mistrial
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 121168
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HYMAN
Prosecutor did not show intent to force defense to request a mistrial. Although State failed to inform defense it planned to introduce other crimes evidence, no evidence in record that prosecutor intended to provoke a motion for mistrial. Although trial judge declared a mistrial, based on State's introduction of evidence of Defendant's drug dealing, nothing in record establishes requisite conscious undermining of criminal trial process with intent to subvert protections afforded by Double Jeopardy Clause. (NEVILLE and PIERCE, concurring.)