Criminal Law

Court found Defendant not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) of first degree murder after stipulated bench trial, and found him in need of inpatient mental-health services in secure setting. Commitment of a defendant found NGRI is a civil proceeding, and NGRI finding is an acquittal, not intended as punishment. Thus, Supreme Court Rule 402 is inapplicable, and no admonishment is required for stipulation to be used as evidence in NGRI proceeding. No ineffective assistance of counsel in defense counsel failing to engage in adversarial testing of whether Defendant met criteria for inpatient treatment. Counsel's strategy to use stipulation rather than live testimony of psychologist was reasonable. (McCULLOUGH and COOK, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 6/11/12.) Defendant was convicted of aggravated domestic battery. Evidence failed to establish that Defendant and victim were in a dating relationship, with romantic focus; instead, evidence established their non-exclusive physical relationship consisting of random sexual encounters. Thus, conviction should be reduced to aggravated battery. (O'BRIEN, concurring; SCHMIDT, dissenting.)

Defendant was convicted of aggravated domestic battery. Defendant and his wife were in argument, and was defiant and combative toward reporting officer, who then tased Defendant; he then fell on his wife, causing her arm to break. State failed to prove that Defendant's voluntary act caused his wife's broken arm. As tasing rendered Defendant incapable of controlling his muscles, his falling on his wife was an involuntary act for which he cannot be held accountable. (McLAREN and HUDSON, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of first degree murder and aggravated criminal sexual assault in death of his six-month-old daughter. Court properly dismissed Defendant's second successive postconviction petition, as it failed to state a claim of actual innocence. Private investigator's memorandum of interview with cellmate witness may suggest reasonable doubt argument but cannot overcome other evidence of guilt to exonerate Defendant. Additional information obtained through FOIA request may be additional supporting claim, but does not make the claim new. (APPLETON and KNECHT, concurring.)

After jury trial, Respondent was found to be a sexually violent person (SVP) and committed for institutional care in secure facility. Failure to hold probable cause hearing within time period of Section 30(b) of SVP Commitment Act does not require automatic dismissal of SVP petition. Respondent failed to show prejudice in denial of motion to remove two jurors for cause; although Respondent had to use up his two peremptory challenges, leaving an objectionable juror, no evidence that remaining juror should have been excused. (LYTTON, concurring; SCHMIDT, specially concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of 16 counts of aggravated DUI and 5 counts of reckless homicide, and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. Defendant's car struck a utility pole in early morning hours while she was transporting eight teenagers from party; five teens died, and three teens and Defendant were severely injured. Section 22-501(d)(2)(G) of Vehicle Code, which requires incarceration unless "extraordinary circumstances require probation", is not unconstitutionally vague. Defendant's sentence was within statutory range and not abuse of discretion; probation would have deprecated seriousness of offense. Court properly considered Defendant's nonmalevolent intent, and conscious decisions to drink and drive, greatly exceed speed limit, and transport too many people. (McLAREN and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)