Criminal Law

This case presents question as to whether plain error doctrine applied to permit Appellate Court to review defendant’s contention that certain inculpatory plea-bargain-related statements were improperly admitted at trial where defendant had failed to preserve said issue on appeal and did not object to usage of said statements at trial? Appellate Court found that introduction of defendant’s statements offering to confess to crime in exchange for guarantee that he would receive probation was improper under Rule 402(f) where defendant exhibited subjective expectation to negotiate plea and where said expectation was reasonable. Ct. further held that it could reach merits of instant issue under second prong of plain error doctrine.

This case presents question as to whether section 11-20.1(a)(i)(ii) and (a)(4) of Criminal Code pertaining to generation of child pornography is constitutional as applied to defendant where defendant took photographs of his 17-year-old girlfriend during consensual sexual activity? Appellate Court, in affirming defendant’s conviction, found that instant child pornography statute is constitutional, even though victim was legally able to consent to sexual activity, since said statute was rationally related to State’s legitimate interest in protecting children from perils of child pornography.

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly dismissed defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief where said petition alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call four witnesses to support defendant’s alibi defense to murder charge. Appellate Court, in affirming dismissal, noted that issue of counsel’s failure to call two of instant four witnesses was resolved on direct appeal and further found that affidavits of said witnesses were deficient where none of said witnesses indicated that they were available and willing to testify to content contained in their affidavits. Ct. further held that defendant failed to establish any prejudice where proposed evidence could not have overcome positive identifications of defendant made by four eyewitness to crime.

This case presents question as to whether, in prosecution on murder and aggravated battery charges, trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his statements made to police following his arrest. While defendant argued that certain provisions of Juvenile Ct. Act should have been followed by police due to fact that defendant was 16 at time of interrogation, Appellate Court found that interrogation of defendant, which was videotaped, was not oppressive, and that police did not abuse his rights. (Dissent filed.)

This case presents question as to whether defendant’s trial counsel labored under per se conflict of interest in representing defendant in instant trial on charge of aggravated criminal sexual abuse where said counsel had acted four years earlier as guardian ad litem for victim of instant charged offense? Appellate Court held that counsel had per se conflict of interest and found that although said conflict was brought to trial court’s attention, new trial was still required since defendant was not advised or admonished about said conflict and did not waive it.

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his arrest and subsequent search that revealed drugs on his person where arrest was based on officer’s observation that defendant had violated local ordinance prohibiting solicitation of unlawful business where defendant had yelled “dro, dro” to passing car while standing in high-volume narcotics spot? Appellate Court, in reversing defendant’s drug possession conviction, found that facts adduced at suppression hearing would not have been sufficient to charge defendant with ordinance violation, where reasonable person would not have known that phrase “dro, dro” was slang for cannabis, and thus govt. lacked probable cause to arrest defendant for said ordinance violation or search him.