Criminal Law

Court erred in dismissing with prejudice inmate's petition for common law writ of certiorari which alleged deprivation of due process in prison disciplinary proceedings against him. Prison committee's finding that inmate committed offense of child photography was reversible, assuming to be true inmate's allegations that he at most attempted to possess photographs of children, yet offense charged requires a sex offender to produce or direct production of photos of children. (TURNER and KNECHT, concurring.)

Court erred in denying Defendant's request to proceed pro se because court failed to find that Defendant suffers from a "severe mental illness" that would affect his competency to conduct his own defense. Defendant actively participated in defense counsel's arguments and motions, and filed a well-written and logical motion to proceed pro se. Courtroom outburst, after court denied his pro se request and his counsel's pretrial motions, was isolated incident and does not support denial of his constitutional right to forgo assistance of counsel. (CARTER and HOLDRIDGE, concurring.)

Court properly granted Defendant's motion to quash arrest for DUI and to suppress evidence. Police officer, after anonymous tip to dispatcher that driver of certain vehicle was drunk, pulled in behind Defendant's vehicle in gas station parking lot, with emergency lights activitated., Defendant made no attempt to drive off, and thus submitted to encounter and was seized at that point. Officer had no personal knowledge of any facts suggesting that Defendant was committing or about to commit a crime, and could have but did not initiate consensual encounter to determine whether tip was genuine. (McLAREN and BURKE, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 1/11/12.) The Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon Statute, insofar as it criminalizes possession of a loaded, uncased and accessible firearm outside the home, does not violate federal constitutional right to bear arms. Statute serves important governmental objective of protecting public and police from inherent dangers and threats to safety, and the means employed by statute are substantially related to its asserted objective. (CAHILL and LAMPKIN, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 1/11/12.) Defendant was convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault of two-year-old boy. Court properly admitted Defendant's videotaped interrogation; testimony and rebuttal closing argument as to Defendant's body language in video did not violate Defendant's right to remain silent, as Defendant, in giving statements in interview, had not remained silent. Detective's alleged hearsay statements during video were admissible, and Defendant's confrontation rights were not implicated, as detective was subject to cross-examination. Detective's statements in video about his opinion that Defendant was guilty was admissible, as they were made in context of interview, to explain logic of interview and Defendant's answers. (SCHOSTOK and HUDSON, concurring.)

Defendant was charged with possession of cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia. Court denied motion to suppress evidence obtained by warrantless entry into and search of ice fishing shanty within which he was fishing. Conservation officer heard person inside shanty say "pack the bowl" and remark on quality of "weed", and heard coughing sound. Officer properly entered shany for warrantless search, due to presence of probable cause and exigent circumstances making it impracticable to obtain warrant, in that Defendant would likely have removed or destroyed cannabis, by smoking it or dropping it through hole in ice, if officer had delayed search. (McLAREN and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Defendant should have received MSR term of at least 3 years, per statute, for his criminal sexual assault conviction, but his sentence was void as he was sentenced to only two years MSR. Thus, his sentence was void, and only proper remedy is remand, and that Defendant be given opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial if he so chooses. (HOLDRIDGE, concurring; LYTTON, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 12/27/11.) Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of residential burglary. Court properly refused to allow inquiry of venire as to whether a witness or a defendant's prior conviction would affect their ability to be fair and impartial, as inquiry would violate Rule 431(a) prohibition against questions covered by jury instructions, and the subject was covered by IPI Criminal 3.13, and would tend to unfairly tip the balance in favor of the Defendant's case. Even though it was undisputed that Defendant was a diabetic, police officers stated that Defendant appeared alert and coherent, and they denied that Defendant informed him of that, or requested food, drink, insulin, or medical attention during interview; thus, court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress his inculpatory statement based on court's assessment of credibility and resolution of conflicting evidence. (LAMPKIN and ROCHFORD, concurring.)