Criminal Law

U.S. v. Scanlan

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Scanlan
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 10-3377
Decision Date: 
January 27, 2012
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error in sentencing defendant to 93-month term of incarceration on firearms' charge based, in part, on finding that defendant's prior California residential burglary conviction qualified as crime of violence under section 2K2.1(a)(2) of USSG. While defendant argued that his burglary conviction did not qualify as crime of violence because, under California law, said conviction could occur if entry into residence was made by invitation, Ct. of Appeals found that that said conviction qualified as crime of violence since it necessarily posed serious risk of injury.

House Bill 3943

Topic: 
Eavesdropping exemptions
(Zalewski, D-Chicago) makes it an exemption from the eavesdropping law for a peace office or designee to record what the officer believes is a felony violation of Illinois’ drug laws. No prior court approval is needed before the officer decides to do this. A companion bill is House Bill 4081 (Gordon, D-Peoria). Assigned to House Rules Committee for referral to a substantive committee.
View Full Text of Legislation

House Bill 4077

Topic: 
New crime
(Kosel, R-Mokena) creates the new crime of making a false statement to a peace officer or investigator. A person commits the offense by (1) knowingly making a false statement to a peace officer or investigator regarding a criminal matter that the person knows to be under investigation by the officer; and (2) the person is first informed by a prosecutor during the interview that a knowing false statement constitutes a Class 4 felony. Assigned to House Rules Committee for referral to a substantive committee.
View Full Text of Legislation

House Bill 4098

Topic: 
Judicial campaigns and disqualification
(Kay, R-Ewardsville) requires the Supreme Court to establish rules allowing for the disclosure by that attorney and disqualification of a judge who has received more than $500 in political contributions in the last five years from that lawyer or law firm if a case is assigned to that judge. Assigned to House Rules Committee for referral to a substantive committee.
View Full Text of Legislation

People v. Burney

People v. Burney
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Fines and Costs
Citation
Case Number: 
2011 IL App (4th) 100343
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Jersey Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and vacated in part; remanded with directions.
Justice: 
TURNER
(Court opinion modified upon denial of rehearing 1/26/12.) Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of residential burglary and criminal trespass to a residence. Court erred in imposing fee for reimbursement of court-appointed counsel without first conducting hearing as to Defendant's financial circumstances and ability to pay. Court properly excluded dog-tracking evidence. No error in prosecutor's statements about reasonable doubt, as he did not diminish State's burden of proof or shift burden to Defendant. Prosecutor's statements in closing argument that victim was a victim of a traumatic event was reasonable inference from evidence, and sought to hold Defendant accountable. Conviction for criminal trespass to residence must be vacated as it violates one-act, one-crime rule. (STEIGMANN, concurring; COOK, specially concurring).

People v. Hixson

People v. Hixson
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Contempt
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (4th) 100777
Decision Date: 
Monday, January 23, 2012
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Champaign Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
KNECHT
Defendant mailed to circuit clerk a pro se postconviction petition, seeking 50% reduction in his 55-year sentence for first-degree murder, along with proposed Order granting petition and reducing sentence 50%. Court erred in finding Defendant in direct criminal contempt, as evidence failed to establish that Defendant submitted proposed Order with a contemptuous state of mind. Even though Defendant had typewritten trial judge's name on signature line of Order, rather than beneath it, this cannot be construed as attempt to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct judge in administration of justice. (APPLETON and POPE, concurring.)

People v. McSwain

People v. McSwain
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Jury Deliberations
Citation
Case Number: 
2011 IL App (4th) 100619
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
McLean Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and vacated in part; remanded with directions.
Justice: 
TURNER
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of five counts of child pornography, based on five images of the same partially nude 17-year-old girl displayed in a single e-mail. As all five counts alleged same conduct, four counts must be vacated, as statute does not authorize multiple convictions based on simultaneous possession of images of same minor displayed in a single e-mail. Court had a duty to answer jury's question seeking dictionary definition of "lewd", and to provide jury with specific and accurate guidance. Court properly answered question by instructing jury on six Lamborn factors, that nudity without lewdness is not child pornography; court was not required to provide dictionary definition. (STEIGMANN and APPLETON, concurring.)

People v. Coleman

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Criminal Court
Postconviction Petition
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
January 25, 2012
Docket Number: 
No. 113307
District: 
3rd Dist. Rule 23 Order.
This case presents question as to whether trial court properly denied defendant's successive postconviction petition, even though defendant, who was convicted on armed robbery and home invasion charges, argued that newly discovered evidence in form of four affidavits from uncharged individuals, who identified themselves as perpetrators of instant charged offense and exonerated defendant, established his actual innocence? Appellate Court, in affirming denial, found that affidavits of two individuals did not constitute new evidence where said individuals testified at original trial, while affidavits of two other individuals were not material since information in said affidavits did not pertain to any issue regarding alleged misidentification of defendant as culprit. Moreover, trial court could properly view instant four individuals as incredible. In his petition for leave to appeal, defendant argued that dismissal was improper where said individuals admitted their guilty and exculpated defendant under circumstances where defendant's conviction was based on impeached eyewitness testimony.

People v. Cruz

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Criminal Court
Postconviction Petition
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
January 25, 2012
Docket Number: 
No. 113399
District: 
1st Dist. Rule 23 Order.
This case presents question as to whether trial court properly dismissed defendant's postconviction petition as untimely where defendant filed supplemental petition, which attempted to explain delay, failed to contained notarized affidavit from defendant? Appellate Court, in affirming dismissal, found that instant supplemental petition was nullity because it was filed without notarized affidavit, and that original petition did not provide cause for delay in filing said petition.

People v. Evans

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Criminal Court
Postconviction Petition
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
January 25, 2012
Docket Number: 
No. 113471
District: 
1st Dist. Rule 23 Order.
This case presents question as to whether trial court properly denied defendant's pro se motion seeking leave to file successive postconviction petition alleging that his due process rights were violated when trial court failed to admonish him of existence of 3-year term of mandatory supervised release (MSR) that attached to his 12-year sentence, which, if MSR were served, would exceed term of incarceration announced by trial court? Appellate Court, affirming instant dismissal, held that defendant failed to adequately explain his failure to raise instant sentencing issue in first postconviction petition and where, but for negotiated plea situations, due process would not require trial court to admonish defendant that MSR would attach to his sentence.