Criminal Law

People v. Martinez

People v. Martinez
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Continuance
Citation
Case Number: 
2011 IL App (2d) 100498
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kane Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Justice: 
BIRKETT
Court refused to grant State a continuance on day of trial, and entered order acquitting Defendant of aggravated battery and mob action. Court abused its discretion in forcing parties to trial when each had a sound statutory basis for a continuance. As State did not attempt to show grounds for trying Defendant in absentia, court erred in proceeding with jury selection. State caused 5 out of 46 months of delay in the case, mostly due to State's failure to locate victims, and thus State showed proper diligence, and Defendant caused twice as much delay by his failure to appear. Thus, was entitled to continuance by its showing of due diligence. (HUDSON, concurring; McLAREN, specially concurring.)

People v. Smith

People v. Smith
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Appeals
Citation
Case Number: 
2011 IL App (4th) 100430
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Champaign Co.
Holding: 
Judgment vacated; appeal dismissed.
Justice: 
TURNER
Defendant was convicted, after stipulated bench trial, of aggravated DUI, and was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment. Appellate court lacks jurisdiction over appeal, as Defendant's affidavit of service and proof of service, although verified, are not notarized, as Rule 12(b)(3) requires, and are thus insufficient to prove that Defendant's postjudgment motion was timely mailed. (POPE, concurring; COOK, dissenting.)

People v. Shipp

People v. Shipp
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Speedy Trial
Citation
Case Number: 
2011 IL App (2d) 100197
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Stephenson Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
BIRKETT
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver within 1000 feet of a church, a Class X felony. Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel by his attorney having failed to move to discharge on speedy-trial grounds when State had amended the information, which previously cited Class 1 felony provision. Speedy-trial provisions were not implicated because amendment was formal to correct a miswriting. Facts alleged in body of charge, alleging possession of more than 1 gram but less than 15 grams of cocaine, a Class X felony amount, were controlling, and charge remained a Class X felony, and the statutory citation was a miswriting. (JORGENSEN and HUDSON, concurring.)

Admissibility of Government Wiretaps after People v Coleman

By David J. Robinson
January
2010
Article
, Page 44
Coleman created an exception to the Illinois eavesdropping statute for joint state and federal investigations. The author criticizes the case and considers its practical implications.

Voir Dire in Criminal Cases - Rule 431(b) Guidance for Lawyers and Judges

By Geoffrey Burkhart
February
2010
Article
, Page 86
A supreme court rule requires judges to ask potential jurors whether they understand and accept four fundamental principles of criminal law. But following the rule is easier said than done.

Sexting: It’s No Joke, It’s a Crime

By Joshua D. Herman
April
2010
Article
, Page 192
A look at the high-stakes legal issues raised by adolescent "sexting" and their implications for counsel to teens, parents, and schools.

U.S. v. Loughry

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Loughry
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 10-2967
Decision Date: 
October 11, 2011
Federal District: 
S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
In prosecution on advertising and distribution of child pornography charges, Dist. Ct. erred in admitting several uncharged videos depicting hard-core child pornography discovered in defendant's home. Propensity evidence admitted under Rule 414 is still subject to unfair prejudice analysis set forth in Rule 403, and Dist. Ct. erred in: (1) failing to actually view subject evidence prior to making ruling on its admissibility; and (2) failing to explain how it balanced Rule 403 factors when admitting instant evidence. Moreover, probative value of such evidence was outweighed by risk of unfair prejudice where: (1) defendant was not charged with possession of child pornography; and (2) subject-matter of instant videos was graphic and inflammatory and otherwise was much worse in nature than child pornography at issue in charged offense.

Criminal Lawyers and the New Ethics Rules

By Randall Rosenbaum
June
2010
Column
, Page 326
Now lawyers must keep "information" (not just "secrets") confidential.

Court Supervision after Padilla v Kentucky

By Gary J. Ravitz
July
2010
Article
, Page 362
Lawyers who misinform clients about supervision could be in for trouble, especially when deportation is at stake.

People v. Stuckey

People v. Stuckey
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Witnesses
Citation
Case Number: 
2011 IL App (1st) 092535
Decision Date: 
Friday, September 30, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and vacated in part; remanded.
Justice: 
CONNORS
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of communication with a witness, under Section 32-4(b) of Criminal Code. Evidence was sufficient to prove Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Three persons testified that Defendant offered one witness $1000 if she did not give court testimony against another person, who was the defendant in a murder trial, orf else "something" would happen. The intent to deter a witness from appearing in court to testify includes the intent to prevent the witness from testifying at all, for the mens rea element of the offense. As evidence was not closely balanced, no prejudice from court's Rule 431(b) error in voir dire. (CUNNINGHAM and HARRIS, concurring.)