Criminal Law

Illinois identity theft statute requires the State to prove the Defendant knew the personal identifying information she used was that "of another person". State was not required to prove that Defendant knew to whom the information belonged. (HOWSE, concurring; McBRIDE, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of first-degree murder and three counts of aggravated battery, after drive-by shooting in which four people were injured, one of whom later died of injuries. Court failed to fully comply with strictures of Rule 431(b), in failing to give all potential jurors opportunity to respond as to whether they understood and agreed with all Zehr principles. Court erred in allowing irrelevant and prejudicial testimony about Defendant’s incarceration for an unrelated drug offense. (EPSTEIN and HOWSE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of attempted first degree murder. Evidence does not support Defendant's claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to argue serious provocation, as manner in which Defendant retaliated (shooting victim several times) from single punch to the jaw was completely out of proportion to victim's conduct. Firearm enhancement provisions for attempted first degree murder does not violate constitutional principle of proportionate penalties. (EPSTEIN and HOWSE, concurring.)

Defendant pled guilty to driving while license suspended, and was sentenced to 6-year imprisonment, but mittimus stayed for 30 months with recognizance bond. Court vacated sentence sua sponte 45 months after entry, and sentenced Defendant to 30 months probation. Court granted State's petition to revoke Defendant's probation, and imposed 6-year sentence of imprisonment. Court's order vacating original sentence and imposing 30 months probation was void, as court had no jurisdiction once 30 days had elapsed from date of sentencing. Court had authority to impose 6-year imprisonment, but did not have authority to stay mittimus for 45 months, rendering that portion of sentence void. Stay was essential part of plea agreement, and thus Defendant is allowed to withdraw her guilty plea. (LYTTON, concurring; SCHMIDT, specially concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of child abduction, for attempting to lure into his van a 14-year old girl walking home from school. State presented sufficient evidence to show that Defendant's acts were for other than a lawful purpose. Child abduction statute is not unconstitutionally vague. Court properly denied Defendant's motion for bill of particulars, as indictment was sufficiently specific so that Defendant was fairly apprised of nature and elements of charged offense. Court properly limited cross-examation of officer to subject matter of direct examination. As court found that Defendant's conduct was sexually motivated, Sex Offender Registration Act applies, as it does not require actual sexual contact or over sexual act. (LAVIN and STERBA, concurring.)

Plaintiff inmate filed pro se complaint for mandamus, injunctive, and declaratory relief against DOC director, alleging his disciplinary reports were void and in violation of due process and liberty and property interests because proceedings were conducted under authority of section of Unified Code of Corrections found unconstitutional by appellate court. Plaintiff cannot state claim for relief as to disciplinary actions after 2003, when legislation became effective reenacting amendment to that section. No claim as to actions prior to 2003; amendments had been found unconstitutional as violative of single-subject rule, and not based on denial of due process. (STEIGMANN and McCULLOUGH, concurring.)

Section 115-20 of Code of Criminal Procedure allow admission of prior domestic battery conviction to show propensity to harm same victim, in a subsequent murder trial when trial court properly determines that alleged victim was a household or family member and that incident was result of domestic violence. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, GARMAN, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)