Criminal Law

Defendant waived her prior speedy trial demands when she failed to appear in courtor communicate with her counsel at two subsequent hearings. Thus, as speedy trial term had not expired, court erred in granting Defendant's motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. A delay occasioned by a defendant, if for health reasons, hospitalization, or other physical incapacity, merely tolls speedy trial term, as of date when court is presented with documentation of illness or physical incapacity, and resumes when incapacity is removed. (LAVIN and STERBA, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of murder after jury trial. Court within its discretion in denying Defendant's request for jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter, given severity of victim's injuries, and that Defendant intentionally kicked victim in the head after professional boxer had punched victim in the head several times. Defendant's mental state was that required for murder, as he knew his acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm. Defendant failed to show denial of right to fair trial as a result of State's excessive use of his nickname of "Kill Bill." No plain error, as evidence was not closely balanced. (J. GORDON and HOWSE, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 6/27/12.) New rule announced in Illinois Supreme Court's 2011 decision in People v. White mandates application of firearm enhancement provision of murder statute any time factual basis of plea agreement includes use of a firearm, and thus rule only affects enhancement of sentence and not integrity or reputation of judicial system. Thus, rule of White case does not apply retroactively to Defendant's postconviction claim. (PUCINSKI and STERBA, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of two counts of armed robbery. Lineup was not impermissibly suggestive by Defendant wearing a red shirt and other person wearing a green shirt, as two eyewitnesses gave similar descriptions of gunman and both identified Defendant as gunman from photo lineup. Court conducted adequate inquiry into allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. 15-year sentence enhancement for armed robbery while armed with a firearm violates proportionate penalties clause. (J. GORDON and McBRIDE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of aggravated battery of a child and aggravated battery with a firearm, in shooting of 10-year-old girl. Defendant failed to request sidebar to discuss admissibility of evidence or to make offer of proof as to his claim of self-defense in attempting to shoot a different person who had previously threatened to harm him. Court properly denied testimony and remarks in closing argument as to intended victim’s reputation for violence, given lack of foundation or offer of proof. Any error in denying request that defense witness be allowed to change from prison attire when testifying was harmless, given overwhelming evidence of Defendant’s guilt. (J. GORDON and HOWSE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of one count of criminal sexual assault. Court properly admitted other crimes evidence to show pattern of conduct relevant to Defendant's motive and propensity when interacting with female teenage foster care children. State sufficiently proved that Defendant, who minor victim considered to be "family", held position of trust, authority, or supervision over victim when left alone with her. (SCHMIDT and McDADE, concurring.)

Court dismissed Defendant's successive postconviction petition, and Defendant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel in failure to amend his petition to allege additional claims. Defendant is required to show merit of excluded claims, as question of merit of claims is crucial to determine whether counsel acted unreasonably by not filing amended petition. Postconviction counsel filed Rule 651(c) certificate, triggering presumption of compliance with rule, and Defendant failed to rebut presumption; thus, no finding that counsel provided unreasonable level of assistance. (LAVIN and FITZGERALD SMITH, concurring.)

Defendant, a college student, was approached by officers while walking across street from his dorm, and initially gave officers a false name and denied that he had identification with him. A person cannot be convicted of obstruction of justice where he attempts to obstruct justice but attempt is unsuccessful and does not interfere in any material way with police investigation. Officer's caution in checking false name against computer database did not significantly delay the arrest, and Defendant's false statements did not actually interefere with or materially impede police investigation, and did not pose any substantial risk that officer would mistakenly allow him to go free. (BOWMAN and HUDSON, concurring.)