Criminal Law

This case presents question as to whether govt. may appeal trial court's denial of prosecutor's motion for continuance that was made after jury had been selected where, after denial of continuance, prosecutor refused to present any evidence and trial court then acquitted defendant? Appellate Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider govt. appeal since trial court's action constituted appealable dismissal under Rule 604(a)(1) and further found that trial court should have granted prosecutor's request for continuance where basis for continuance was absence of two material witnesses, who had failed to appear for trial in spite of being subpoenaed. Ct. further held that govt. was entitled to "last chance" continuance under section 114-4(e).

This case presents question as to whether defendant, who was HIV infected, committed crime of aggravated criminal sexual assault where defendant asserted that govt. failed to prove aggravating factor of threatening or endangering victim's life during commission of offense, and where alleged aggravating factor was fact that defendant had unprotected sex with victim that exposed her to his bodily fluids? Appellate Court, in reducing defendant's conviction to criminal sexual assault, found that HIV exposure by itself during criminal sexual assault is not enough to raise crime of criminal sexual assault to aggravated criminal sexual assault under section 12-14(a)(3).

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly granted defendant's motion to dismiss his murder charges on grounds that govt. had violated his statutory right to speedy trial where: (1) govt. had previously sought and was granted one 60-day extension of time under section 103-5(c) to obtain presence of alleged eye-witness whose high risk pregnancy prevented her from attending trial; (2) state received second continuance under section 103-5(c) to obtain presence of another witness who was deployed to Afghanistan at time of rescheduled trial; and (3) all delays attributable to govt. totaled 203 days? Appellate Court, in affirming trial court, found that govt. could only seek continuances under section 103-55(c) that totaled 60 days, and that dismissal was required under section 103-5 where defendant, who was at all times in custody, was not brought to trial within 180 days.

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly denied defendant's motion to quash his arrest and suppress evidence where police searched defendant following his arrest for petty offense of walking in middle of street in violation of section 11-1007 of Ill. Vehicle Code? Appellate Court, in affirming trial court, found that Ill. Constitution does not prohibit full custodial arrest for petty offense. Ct. further rejected defendant's request to depart from similar federal rule announced in Atwater.