Criminal Law

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress drugs and drug paraphernalia seized from cabinet in defendant’s kitchen during incident in which officers entered into defendant’s home based of report or gas leak. One officer used flashlight to see through opening in cabinet door to what appeared to be quantity of drugs, while other officer was attempting to convince defendant to leave home because of gas leak, and officer subsequently obtained search warrant to seize drugs in cabinet. Appellate Court, in affirming denial of motion to suppress, rejected defendant’s claim that officer exceeded scope of community caretaking exception to 4th Amendment’ s warrant requirement, and further found that officer in kitchen had otherwise lawful basis for being there, and that officer’s use of flashlight did not transform lawful search into unlawful search.

This case presents question as to whether Special Prosecutor can re-indict defendant on felony disorderly conduct charges for making false hate crime accusations after defendant made agreement with States Attorney to nolle prosequi original disorderly conduct charges in exchange for his performance of community service and his forfeiture of his bond. While defendant argued that State could not bring new charges, where he had completed his community service, Appellate Court, in affirming defendant’s conviction on subsequent charges, held that record did not establish that defendant entered into agreement with States’ Attorney in which States’ Attorney agreed to forgo further prosecution in exchange for defendant’s performance of community service and forfeiture of bond. Appellate Court further noted that State was not barred from re-prosecuting defendant, since nolle prosequi of original indictment was not final disposition of case. (Dissent filed.)

This case presents question to whether Appellate Court properly dismissed State’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, where State appealed trial courts’ order, which had vacated defendant’s convictions and ordered new trials in this case. Appellate Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider States’ appeal because: (1) defendant’s case had been remanded to trial court under circumstances, where prior remand contemplated that defendant would be awarded new trial. Dissent, however, asserted that Appellate Court decision was tantamount to an improper, sub silentio vacatur of defendant's convictions in prior appeal where he did not ask for vacatur of his convictions. Moreover, State could properly view trial court’s order as appealable order granting defendant's post-conviction petition.

This case presents question to whether trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea under circumstances, where trial court granted defendant’s motion to proceed at hearing on motion to withdraw his guilty plea without appointed counsel and without giving defendant Rule 401 admonishments prior to removal of his appointed counsel. Remand was required because Rule 401 applies even after defendant had been sentenced where trial court had accepted guilty plea.

This case presents question as to whether trial court erred, in admitting in instant aggravated criminal sexual assault of 16-year-old boy trial that involved allegations that defendant touched genitals of victim, evidence of defendant’s prior bad acts with other victims to establish defendant’s intent to commit charged offense. Appellate Court, in reversing defendant’s conviction, found that where, as here, defendant had denied commission of charged offense and did not offer any evidence that his actions were accidental, incidental or inadvertent, other acts evidence may not be admitted to prove intent, even if defendant admits that he was present with victim at time of alleged offense.