Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and home invasion. Statements of what happened and what led to predicament of coconspirators was not mere narrative, but furthered the efforts to conceal their actions. Thus, statements were admissible under coconspirator exception to hearsay rule, and are admissible against all coconspirators where declaration was made during pendency of and in furtherance of conspiracy. Defendant raised issue of quality of witness' memory of events, which was outside of impeachment of witness with her prior inconsistent statement. (ZENOFF and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)

Defendant pled guilty to criminal damage to property, and sentenced him to 24 months probation. Court should have sentenced Defendant to TASC (Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities) probation under Alcoholism and Other Drug Abuse and Dependency Act. TASC report stated that Defendant was eligible for treatment program, and noted there was nexus between his alcohol and drug abuse and his criminal activity, and that he was likely to be rehabilitated through treatment. Language of Act mandates TASC treatment unless court makes a specific determination that no significant relationship between Defendant's addiction and the crime or imprisonment is required to protect community. (WRIGHT and O'BRIEN, concurring.)

Respondent, a minor, was adjudicated delinquent after court found him guilty of aggravated discharge of a weapon and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. Minor, then age 16, had fired multiple shots in direction of plainclothes officers responding to a large street fight. Court designated proceedings as extended jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ) prosecution. Statutory requirement to hold a hearing within 60 days of filing of EJJ motion is directory, not mandatory, and failure to hold hearing within 60 days does not render minor's adult sentence void. Minor has no standing to make constitutional challenge to vagueness of the term "conditions", as it is aportion of EJJ statute that does not pertain to him. EJJ statute is not unconstitutional as it does not violate minor's right to due process as set forth in U.S. Supreme Court case of Apprendi v. New Jersey. Apprendi does not apply to EJJ statute as it is dispositional, not adjudicatory, in nature. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, THOMAS, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. Officers relied on vague tip from citizen which was insufficient to justify traffic stop in which Defendant was a passenger. Defendant, a backseat passenger, took off running, despite officers' instructions to stop, and he dropped a loaded gun. Defendant's flight interrupted the causal connection between the officers' misconduct, which was not flagrant, and the discovery of the gun. Thus, the gun was not the fruit of the poisonous tree. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN, KARMEIER, and BURKE, concurring.)