Criminal Law

(Modified 11/4/11 upon denial of rehearing.) State sought involuntary commitment of Respondents under Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act. Court denied Respondents' petitions for fitness exam to determine if Respondents were fit and, if not, whether they could be restored to fitness. Respondents do not have a right to fitness evaluation under statutory language of Act and do not have a due process right to fitness evaluation. Court is without inherent authority to order fitness evaluation. (GARCIA and McBRIDE, concurring.)

Defendant was charge with first degree murder, for death of victim who drowned after being pushed into Lake Michigan at Montrose Harbor in Chicago, in early morning. Jury found Defendant not guilty of first degree murder, but guilty of lesser offense of involuntary manslaughter. Court properly admitted, as other crimes evidence, testimony of man who Defendant pushed into Lake Michigan at Montrose Harbor, in early morning, one month prior to charged offense. Two incidents were strikingly similar and showed a distinctive criminal pattern. In both cases, Defendant, after drinking with friends, pushing fishermen from behind into the water and then laughed and fled. Evidence was admitted for purposes other than to show propensity to commit criminal acts, and court did not err in weighing evidence's probative value to be greater than its prejudicial effect. Sentence of 10 years was not excessive. (CUNNINGHAM and CONNORS, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after stipulated bench trial, of possession of controlled substance. Defendant was arrested after officer observed him walking in middle of public road, and cocaine found in his sock when Defendant was searched at police station. Illinois does not prohibit arrests for petty offenses, and thus court properly denied motion to quash and suppress. Court must conduct hearing as to Defendant's financial resources before ordering him to reimburse public defender for services. (BOWMAN and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Court dismissed indictment charging a 21-year-old defendant in adult criminal court with aggravated criminal sexual assault allegedly committed when defendant was under age 15. Strict construction of Juvenile Court Act requires that proceedings could be brought only under that Act, because Defendant was ages 13 and 14 at time of alleged offenses. Neither exception to mandate of Section 5-120 of Act applies, as State did not file motion under either exception, and State's failure to file such motion precludes prosecution after Defendant's 21st birthday. (HUDSON and BIRKETT, concurring.)

(Court opinion modified 10/27/11 upon denial of rehearing.) Defendant attorney was convicted, after bench trial, of theft and forgery as to her former law firm partner. As to the value-of-the-property element of theft, State is not required to prove a defendant's interest in wrongfully taken property. Evidence was sufficient to show theft of currency over $100,000. Rational trier of fact could have concluded that Defendant intended to permanently deprive law firm or partner of wrongfully taken funds; evidence showed that partners agreed that Defendant would take payments only via payroll checks. (BURKE and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of cannabis, after cannabis, a pipe, and a cigar containing traces of cannabis were found in his truck. A cigar is not within the definition of drug paraphernalia, as cigars are traditional means of ingesting tobacco. Court improperly ordered Defendant to pay public defender-fee without first holding hearing on his ability to pay. Assessment of fine was improper as statute providing for its imposition was not in effect at time of Defendant's offense. Mental-health-court fee is a fine. (ZENOFF and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of controlled substance trafficking and criminal drug conspiracy, after package shipped via UPS was searched, pursuant to search warrant, and found to contain cocaine. Police were aware of multiple factors in support of their suspicion that package contained narcotics, including that package was heavily taped around all edges and seams, which evinced effort to defeat canine detection. Additional factors, such as false names listed and telephone numbers on package, and method of shipping (next day air, early morning delivery) continued to bear weight even after dog failed to alert. Thus, facts were sufficient to establish reasonable, articulable suspicion that package contained narcotics. (McCULLOUGH and COOK, concurring.)