Criminal Law

U.S. v. Zitt

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Zitt
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 12-1277 & 12-2865 Cons.
Decision Date: 
April 15, 2013
Federal District: 
N.D. Ind., Hammond Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
In prosecution on drug conspiracy charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s request for mistrial based on witness’ testimony that witness and defendant were in jail together. While defendant argued that witness’ response to question was prejudicial because it suggested that defendant had prior criminal history, defendant assumed risk where: (1) defendant counsel asked question that generated said response; and (2) witness’ testimony was logical response to question as to whether defendant had known that witness was in jail at particular time. Moreover, witness’ reference to defendant’s criminal history was brief, and evidence strongly implicated defendant in charged offenses.

House Bill 2404

Topic: 
Juvenile Court Act
Juvenile court jurisdiction. House Bill 2404 (Currie) raises the age of jurisdiction for juvenile court from 17 to 18 for most felony offenses. The jurisdictional age for misdemeanor offenses was raised from 17 to 18 several years ago, and after the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission studied the benefits of that change, recommended that it be extended to most felonies. Essentially, House Bill 2404 would align our juvenile court jurisdiction with 38 other states, the federal government, and common culture. It is on third reading in the House awaiting a vote.
View Full Text of Legislation

People v. Nicholas

People v. Nicholas
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Postconviction Petition
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 103202
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded with instructions.
Justice: 
PIERCE
Defendant filed successive postconviction petition alleging that he was physically coerced into confessing by police, and that his confession was used as substantive evidence of his guilt at trial. Defendant's claims of beating and manner of beating were similar to that documented in 2006 Report of police torture at Area 2, and Defendant identified three detectives who were named as torturers by other prisoners in 2006 Report. Thus, Defendant established prejudice. Postconviction appellate counsel's failure to raise Defendant's claims on appeal was unreasonable and prejudiced Defendant. (NEVILLE and HYMAN, concurring.)

People v. Bingham

People v. Bingham
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Sexually Dangerous Persons
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (4th) 120414
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Macon Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
KNECHT
State failed to prove Defendant to be a sexually dangerous person beyond a reasonable doubt. To prove that a defendant has a mental disorder, State must show that defendant has serious difficulty controlling her sexual behavior, and court must make a finding of sexual dangerousness accompanied by explicit finding it is substantially probable the person will commit sex offenses in the future if not confined. Evidence of one act is not sufficient to prove propensity to commit sex offenses. (APPLETON and POPE, concurring.)

People v. Johnson

People v. Johnson
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Accountability Theory
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (4th) 120162
Decision Date: 
Friday, April 5, 2013
District: 
4th Dist
Division/County: 
McLean Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part as modified and vacated in part; remanded with directions.
Justice: 
STEIGMANN
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of unlawful possession with intent to deliver heroin. State failed to present evidence that Defendant intended to deliver heroin under the theory State presented to jury. State presented sufficient evidence that Defendant had constructive possession of heroin as a principal, in that he exercised dominion over the heroin. State's evidence did not support its theory that Defendant shared his passenger's intent to deliver. Intent to deliver as a mental state can be imputed only where State's theory of case is accountability. (KNECHT, concurring; APPLETON, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

People v. Armstrong

People v. Armstrong
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Witnesses
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (3d) 110388
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Peoria Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
SCHMIDT
Witnesses' prior inconsistent statements to detective, implicating Defendant, were substantive evidence, and there was some corroborative evidence to support Defendant's conviction for first degree murder. Evidence was sufficient to prove Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury chose to believe the State's evidence, which included prior inconsistent statements of witnesses. Pretrial statement of one witness was videotaped, and jury could thereby see witness' demeanor and compare it to his demeanor at trial. (WRIGHT and McDADE, concurring.)

People v. Brown

People v. Brown
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Hearsay
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (2d) 110327
Decision Date: 
Friday, April 12, 2013
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Winnebago Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HUDSON
Whether to admonish a defendant as to his or her right to a bench trial is a matter within the trial court's discretion, and is a right that a defendant must assert. An on-the-record waiver of the right to bench trial is not required. Defendant was not denied his right to confrontation by court's admission of hearsay statement that child told his mother that Defendant pushed him. Child's statement occurred in a fast-paced confrontation and it concerned a threat to child's well-being, and thus was not testimonial. (JORGENSEN and BIRKETT, concurring.)

People v. Gray

People v. Gray
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Post-Conviction Petitions
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 112572
Decision Date: 
Thursday, April 11, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 4th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
LAVIN
Court properly dismissed Defendant's 2-1401 postconviction petition. Defendant was sentenced to mandatory term of life imprisonment on his conviction of murder via accountability theory, as he had previously been convicted of murder. Defendant's mandatory life sentence, even if unconstitutional, was not void but only voidable, had Defendant challenged it in a timely manner. Although a constitutional challenge to a criminal statute can generally be raised for the first time on appeal, it cannot be if the Defendant filed an untimely Section 2-1401 petition, failed to establish an exception to untimeliness, and failed to establish a claim of voidness. (EPSTEIN and PUCINSKI, concurring.)

People v. Dumas

People v. Dumas
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Reasonable Doubt
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (2d) 120561
Decision Date: 
Friday, April 12, 2013
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kane Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
SCHOSTOK
To obtain a certificate of innocence per Section 2-702 of Code of Criminal Procedure, a defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he is actually innocent and that he did not act in a way that brought about his conviction; a reversal for failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt will not suffice. Court properly denied Defendant's request for certificate of innocence, as record shows that Defendant took multiple steps to arrange a drug sale, which ultimately led to his arrest and conviction, and thus he voluntarily caused or brought about his own conviction. (ZENOFF and HUDSON, concurring.)