Criminal Law

People v. Lewis

People v. Lewis
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Murder
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (1st) 102089
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed; mittimus corrected.
Justice: 
TAYLOR
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of second degree murder. Victim walked toward Defendant after Defendant had displayed a gun to break up an ongoing fistfight in which victim was involved. As Defendant knew victim was unarmed and had never shot at other gang members, his use of force was unjustified and was not in self-defense. (McBRIDE and PALMER, concurring.)

People v. Richter

People v. Richter
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Hearsay
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (4th) 101025
Decision Date: 
Monday, October 22, 2012
District: 
4th Dist
Division/County: 
Macon Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
STEIGMANN
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of one count of first degree murder. Prior to trial, court granted portions of State's motion in limine and allowed admitted most statements the victim (Defendant's longtime girlfriend) had made to others about Defendant's threats that he would kill her if she movied into her own apartment as she was planning. Absent government involvement in eliciting or receiving an accusatory hearsay statement, that statement is not testimonial hearsay. When the existence or extent of government involvement is not clear, trial court should receive pertinent evidence and make appropriate findings of fact. (APPLETON, concurring; POPE, specially concurring.)

People v. Stephens

People v. Stephens
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Fitness
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (1st) 110296
Decision Date: 
Friday, October 26, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,6th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed; remanded for resentencing.
Justice: 
R. GORDON
Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of first degree murder and aggravated battery of four-month-old daughter of his girlfriend. Experts' opinions alone, which did not discuss or opine to Defendant's fitness, do not provide arguable basis for finding bona fide doubt of Defendant's fitness. Defendant was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to request fitness hearing. Defendant's appeal to supreme court was a discretionary appeal and not one as of right, and thus Defendant did not have the right to counsel in filing his petition for leave to appeal, and thus appellate counsel could not have been ineffective in failing to preserve all of his claims. (LAMPKIN and HALL, concurring.)

People v. Max

People v. Max
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Closing Arguments
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (3d) 110385
Decision Date: 
Monday, November 19, 2012
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Grundy Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
CARTER
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of theft in excess of $10,000 from ATM at gas station where Defendant worked. No due process violation in State's attempt to define reasonable doubt in rebuttal of closing argument, as no reasonable likelihood that jury believed that it could find Defendant guilty under lesser standard of proof. No abuse of discretion in denial of motion for appointment of special prosecutor, and no showing of ineffective assistance of counsel. Evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove Defendant guilty. State presented expert testimony that ATM was functioning properly and that shortfall of $64,600 for relevant time period. (SCHMIDT and McDADE, concurring.)

People v. Wigman

People v. Wigman
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Speedy Trial
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (2d) 100736
Decision Date: 
Thursday, November 8, 2012
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kendall Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
BIRKETT
Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of DUI and improper lane usage. Defendant was not denied a speedy trial, because he never made an effective demand. No ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move for discharge. Court correctly held that Defendant was in simultaneous custody, and was entitled to credit for time served while arrest warrants were outstanding in this case, even though he was in the custody of another county. Because he was in custody on this case at time he made a speedy trial demand, that demand was premature and had no legal effect. (HUDSON, concurring; HUTCHINSON, dissenting.)

People v. Jackson

People v. Jackson
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Motions to Suppress
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (1st) 103300
Decision Date: 
Friday, October 26, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,6th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed; mittimus corrected.
Justice: 
R. GORDON
Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. Court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress loaded handgun found in Defendant's backpack. Officer in marked squad car observed Defendant in Humboldt Park, which officer described as a high-violence high narcotics trafficking area, walking rapidly and constantly watching squad car. Officer's uncontradicted and undisputed testimony, which is accepted by trial court, is sufficient to support a court's finding that incident occurred in a high-crime area. Together with Defendant's bizarre behavior of flailing and nervous movements upon being stopped, officer had reasonable suspicion justifying search of backpack. (PALMER, concurring; GARCIA, dissenting.)

U.S. v. Plowman

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Plowman
Criminal Court
Entrapment
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-3781
Decision Date: 
November 20, 2012
Federal District: 
S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
In prosecution on federal-funds bribery charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting govt.’s motion in limine to preclude defendant from raising entrapment defense. Record lacked evidence of inducement on part of govt. where tapes and transcripts indicated that defendant had initially raised possibility of changing zoning designation for proposed club in exchange for $5,000 payment and ultimately indicated that he needed initial $5,000 payment plus supplemental payment of one or two thousand dollars to pay others to effectuate zoning change. Record also showed that defendant was active and willing participant in his discussions with undercover agent.

People v. Ames

People v. Ames
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Right to Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (4th) 110513
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
District: 
4th Dist
Division/County: 
Menard Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
STEIGMANN
Defendant pled guilty to DUI and was sentenced to one year of supervision. Fourteen months later, court revoked Defendant's supervision and resentenced him to 18 months probation and 60 days in county jail. Court appointed two attorneys, but allowed both to withdraw given their difficulties in obtaining Defendant's cooperation. Defendant never expressly rejected court's offer to appoint counsel for him, but court denied Defendant's request for continuance to obtain new attorney, after telling trial court that he did not have enough money to retain his own attorney. Court erred in forcing Defendant to proceed pro se at revocation hearing. (APPLETON and COOK, concurring.)

People v. Mutesha

People v. Mutesha
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Fitness
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (2d) 110059
Decision Date: 
Monday, November 19, 2012
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Lake Co.
Holding: 
Vacated; appeal dismissed.
Justice: 
BIRKETT
Because Defendant's appeal of a prior unfitness determination was still pending, trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on posttrial motions and sentence Defendant, and thus its orders on those matters are void. Because a new fitness finding is based on new facts, it is independent of, and collateral to, the finding of unfitness that is on appeal, but the determination of guilt, as a central issue in a criminal matter, is not collateral to appeal of finding of unfitness. (McLAREN and HUTCHINSON, concurring.)

Ray v. Clements

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Ray v. Clements
Criminal Court
Habeas Corpus
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-3228
Decision Date: 
November 19, 2012
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
In defendant’s appeal of Dist. Ct.’s denial of defendant’s habeas petition, Ct. of Appeals previously found that defendant’s constitutional rights had been violated when state introduced at defendant’s murder trial out-of-court statements made by non-testifying individuals who implicated defendant in charged offense. Ct. of Appeals remanded case, though, for determination as to whether defendant’s state-court post-conviction motion raising underlying error was timely where: (1) defendant claimed that he timely tendered said motion to prison official to mail to state court; (2) state court never received said petition; and (3) defendant did not file supplemental motion until two years later when he found out that original motion had not been received by state court. While Dist. Ct. subsequently found that defendant had failed in his burden to show that original motion was timely filed, Ct. of Appeals found that prison mailbox rule applied, and that state, as opposed to defendant, had burden of proof to demonstrate that original motion was untimely where defendant present affidavit that he timely tendered motion to prison official, as well as other evidence in form of inquiry letters to prison official to support his claim of timely tender. Ct. of Appeals further found that state had failed to present competent evidence to contradict defendant’s testimony, and that record failed to support Dist. Ct. finding that defendant was not credible in his claims of timely tender. (Dissent filed.)