Criminal Law

Office of State Appellate Defendant is allowed to withdraw as counsel on appeal as no meritorious issues can be raised. Defendant was properly admonished that any prison term would be followed by three years MSR before his guilty plea. Defendant was not deprived of the benefit of the bargain, as he and the State could not have agreed to waive MSR. MSR, which is an included part of a sentence rather than in addition to a sentence, is not a form of imprisonment or an unlawful constraint upon liberty. (KNECHT, concurring; TURNER, specially concurring.)

Defendant's nervousness, along with presence of multiple air fresheners in the passenger section of the car, together with Defendant's implausible explanation that he helped drive a car across the U.S. for delivery to an unidentified person, was sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion that Defendant had actual or constructive possession of the drugs found in his vehicle. Drug detection dog had already alerted on the outside of the vehicle before jumping into the car, and the police thus had the requisite probable cause to search of the vehicle at the instant of the dog's alert outside. (TURNER and POPE, concurring.)

As Defendant's two convictions for aggravated battery were premised upon the same physical act, by Defendant striking the victim once in the face, the conviction for the less serious offense must be vacated, under the one-act, one-crime rule. (TURNER and STEIGMANN, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of first degree murder. Defendant argued, on appeal, that trial court abused its discretion by coercing him into withdrawing his request to proceed pro se, which he had filed two days prior to trial. Court's admonishments to Defendant were not coercive and were proper to inform Defendant of risks and limitations of proceeding pro se. (APPLETON and TURNER, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 12/6/12.) Defendant was charged with committing aggravated battery on a victim whom the defendant knew to be pregnant. Court improperly denied State's motion in limine seeking permission for alleged victim to testify that she had used a home pregnancy test kit and had shown the positive result to Defendant. Evidence would be introduced to show notice or knowledge by Defendant that there was a substantial probability that she was pregnant, and not a substantive fact, and thus State was not required to include a foundation as to test procedures in its proffer. Defendant could attack potential unreliability of evidence in many ways, including subjecting it to Frye test prior to trial. (JORGENSEN and HUTCHINSON, concurring).

Autopsy reports prepared by a medical examiner's office in the normal course of its duties are nontestimonial. Autopsy report prepared in the normal course of business of a medical examiner's office is not rendered testimonial merely because the assistant medical examiner performing the autopsy is aware that police suspect homicide and that a specific individual might be responsible. (FREEMAN, THOMAS, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring; KILBRIDE, dissenting.)

The quantum and scope of evidence needed to establish probable cause in a postcommitment discharge or conditional release proceeding pursuant to the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Ac is that the trial court should not attempt to determine definitively whether each element of the movant's claim can withstand close scrutiny as long as some "plausible" evidence, or reasonable inference based on that evidence, supports it. To present a plausible account, the committed individual bears the burden to present sufficient evidence that demonstrates a change in the circumstances that led to the initial commitment. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN, KARMEIER, and BURKE.)

(Modified upon denial of rehearing 11/26/12.) A defense counsel's representation of a prosecution witness is a per se conflict of interest when the representation is contemporaneous with defense counsel's representation of the defendant, but is not a per se conflict of interest when defense counsel's representation of the witness is prior to counsel's representation of defendant. A prosecution witness cannot also be an "entity assisting the prosecution", as an individual is not an entity. An entity does not include a person for purposes of per se conflicts of interest. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, GARMAN, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)