Criminal Law

People v. Burton

People v. Burton
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Search and Seizure
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 2-09-0747
Decision Date: 
Monday, April 11, 2011
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Du Page Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
JORGENSEN
Court properly denied Defendant's motion to quash arrest and to suppress the weapon that formed the basis of charges of which he was convicted after bench trial. During police visit to apartment for possible domestic disturbance, officer made warrantless search of pocket of a large man's coat hanging in a shared closet, in which handgun was found; Defendant's girlfriend, who resided there, had given her consent to search aparment. Officers reasonably believed that girlfriend had apparent authority to permit a search of the closet, including Defendant's coat. A refusal to sign a consent-to-search form is not a per se express refusal of consent. (McLAREN and BURKE, concurring.)

People v. Havlin

People v. Havlin
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Motions to Suppress
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 3-09-0939
Decision Date: 
Monday, April 18, 2011
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Tazewell Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
WRIGHT
Defendant was indicted for unlawful possession of controlled substance. Court improperly granted motion to suppress. Defendant was not in custody when officer asked a question about the contraband in the vehicle, and thus Miranda warnings were not required before Defendant responded to officer's general question about ownership of pills. (O'BRIEN and SCHMIDT, concurring.)

People v. Mullins

People v. Mullins
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 108909
Decision Date: 
Thursday, April 21, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court reversed.
Justice: 
FREEMAN
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of felony possession of heroin with intent to deliver. Admission of Defendant's prior conviction was proper, as jury was properly instructed that it was only to impeach credibility, and as trial court had found that its probative value outweighed its prejudicial impact. Although error to defer ruling on use of Defendant's prior convictions to impeach until after he testified, error was harmless. (BURKE, concurring; KILBRIDE, GARMAN, THOMAS, KARMEIER, and THEIS, specially concurring.)

People v. Yusuf

People v. Yusuf
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Voir Dire
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 4-08-0034
Decision Date: 
Thursday, April 14, 2011
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Champaign Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
McCULLOUGH
(Reconsidered per supervisory order of 1/11.) Trial court's error, in failing to question venire, or to allow them to respond, about the four Zehr principles, was not plain error, and Defendant failed to show that jury was biased. All four Zehr principles were addressed to each juror at some point during voir dire, and evidence presented against Defendant was overwhelming. (KNECHT and TURNER, concurring.)

Senate Bill 1237

Topic: 
Victims' Rights Act
(Mayfield, D-Chicago) makes sweeping changes to criminal procedure. (1) Allows a victim to be present at the trial and all other court proceedings on the same basis as the accused. (No right of sequestration by defendant.) (2) Requires the law enforcement agency that investigates an offense committed in this State to provide a crime victim with a written statement and explanation of the rights of crime victims within 24 hours of law enforcement's initial contact with a victim. (3) Requires that law enforcement authorities notify the victim of the apprehension of an offender and closure of the investigation within 24 hours of the event. (4) Requires a court to reopen a plea or sentence if (a) the victim asserted the right to be heard before or during the proceeding at issue and such right was denied; and (b) in the case of a plea, the accused has not pleaded to the highest offense charged. (5) Appears to give the victim a right to an attorney at taxpayer expense to protect these rights. (6) Requires the state's attorney to give reasonable notice to the victim of most important court proceedings in the matter. (7) Appears to give victims a cause of action for damages or attorney's fees for failure to comply with this Act. (8) Repeals the court's authority to move forward on a proceeding if the crime victim failed to receive notice as is required under this Act. This passed the House 103-0-0 has been sent to the Senate. It is similar to a constitutional amendment to implement these rights that is still pending in the House. (HJRCA 29) .

Price v. Thurmer

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Price v. Thurmer
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-3851
Decision Date: 
April 18, 2011
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his attempted murder conviction on ground that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to provide court-appointed expert with certain reports from lay observers of defendant’s behavior at or near time of instant attack, where said expert eventually opined that defendant’s violent attack was more likely caused by substance-induced acute delirium rather than mental illness, and where defendant contended that his mental illness was cause of attack. Denial was proper under recent standard set forth in Harrington, 131 SCt 770, since it was not unreasonable for Wisc. state court to find that expert would not have changed his opinion had he seen said reports, even though Ct. of Appeals might have disagreed with conclusion reached by state court.

House Bill 2362

Topic: 
Mental health records
(Barickman, R-Pontiac) amends the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act to allow records and communications made to or by a therapist in the course of court-ordered treatment to render the recipient fit to stand trial or in the course of an assessment or treatment at an outpatient facility, a residential treatment facility, or a local jail or detention center to be disclosed to a court-appointed therapist, psychologist, or psychiatrist (instead of in the course of court-ordered treatment to render the recipient fit to stand trial) for use in determining a person's fitness to stand trial. Provides that the records and communications shall be admissible only as to issues involving the recipient's physical or mental condition and only to the extent that these are germane to such proceedings.Passed the House and on first reading in the Senate.
View Full Text of Legislation

House Bill 2558

Topic: 
Appointment of special prosecutor
(Tryon, R-Crystal Lake) requires that a court must contact certain public agencies to determine if a public prosecutor is available to serve as a special prosecutor at no cost to the county before appointing a private attorney to perform the functions of the State's Attorney. Requires that the court must participate in all agreements relating to the compensation of a special prosecutor. Prohibits the power and authority of a special prosecutor from being expanded without prior notice to the county and an opportunity to present information in court concerning the financial impact of an expansion. Limits a court's interpretation regarding certain orders and the requirement of a county to pay legal fees. Passed the House 108-0-0 and is on first reading in the Senate.
View Full Text of Legislation

People v. Perry

People v. Perry
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Jury Instructions
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-08-1228
Decision Date: 
Thursday, March 31, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 4th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed as modified; remanded with directions.
Justice: 
PUCINSKI
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of first-degree murder. Court properly refused involuntary manslaughter instruction, as evidence did not support it; several witnesses testified that Defendant punched victim as victim walked away, and stomped on victim's head as he lay on the ground. Court gave the appropriate jury instructions which correctly stated the law for each method of murder, and Defendant was not entitled to the second paragraph of IPI Criminal 5.01B where jury returned a general verdict presumed to be based on intentional murder. No plain error in court's failure to comply with Rule 431 in voir dire, by failing to admonish jury as to principle that the defendant is not required to offer any evidence on his own behalf, and by failing to ask each potential juror if they understood and accepted each principle; evidence was not closely balanced, and error did not affect fairness of trial. (GALLAGHER and LAVIN, concurring.)

People v. Chromik

People v. Chromik
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 3-09-0686
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Peoria Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
SCHMIDT
Jury acquitted Defendant of criminal sexual assault charge but convicted him of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a 16-year-old high school student; he was student's home economics instructor and assistant soccer coach. Court properly admitted both prior bad acts evidence as to incident when, according to victim, Defendant touched her inappropriately when the two were alone in a soccer equipment shed; incidents were proximate in time and involved similar conduct by Defendant. Court properly admitted a document containing text messages (typed by school principal as student/victim read messages aloud) sent to her by Defendant; court properly authenticated document as a transcription of reading, Defendant admitted sending several of the messages, and content of messages was relevant. (LYTTON and McDADE, concurring.)