Criminal Law

This case presents question as to whether defendant forfeited argument that trial court committed plain error during sentencing defendant to 10-year term of incarceration by considering fact that he held position of trust over victim on charged offense of aggravated domestic violence. While Appellate Court agreed with defendant that trial court erred in considering said factor, it further noted that defendant had failed to raise said issue during sentencing hearing, and that defendant had failed to establish that such consideration constituted plain error, where: (1) evidence at sentencing was not closely balanced, given strength of factors in aggravation; and (2) defendant failed to show that consideration of said factor deprived him of fair sentencing hearing, In his petition for leave to appeal, defendant argues that consideration of improper sentencing factor violated a fundamental right and triggers plain-error review.

This case presents question as to whether trial court violated defendant’s right to public trial in instant murder prosecution when it granted State’s motion in limine to exclude defendant’s mother from courtroom until prosecutor indicated that she would no longer be called as witness. Appellate Court, in reversing defendant’s murder conviction, found that trial court had failed to properly apply Waller test to justify mother’s exclusion, especially where State had ample alternative evidence on issues mother might have testified, and where State failed to show that there was any reasonable probability that mother would actually testify. Appellate Court further found that violation of right to public trial is recognized as structural error that required reversal of conviction and remand for new trial. In its petition for leave to appeal, State argued that trial court does not impinge on right to public trial when it is merely exercising its discretion to temporarily exclude witnesses during trial.

This case presents question as to whether defendant established viable ineffective assistance of counsel claim, where defendant alleged that counsel filed speedy trial demand under wrong statute and failed to object to four requests for continuances of trial that delayed his trial beyond actual statutory time frame. Appellate Court found that although counsel’s performance fell below reasonably competent standard of representation because he should have known correct statute that governed defendant’s speedy trial right, defendant did not establish any prejudice in counsel’s actions, because record did not support conclusion that if counsel had filed speedy trial demand under proper statute, the result of trial court’s proceedings would have been different but for counsel’s error in filing wrong speedy trial demand. Defendant also argued in his petition for leave to appeal that: (1) trial court erred during sentencing by referring to wrong and higher minimum sentence when sentencing on defendant’s attempted murder conviction; and (2) Appellate Court erred in remanding for sentencing his conviction on unlawful use of weapon, where trial court failed to originally sentence him on said charge due to prosecutor’s invitation to not sentence him on said charge.

This case presents question as to whether police violated defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when during interrogation police continued to ask defendant questions after he stated there “ain’t nothing further for us to talk about.” Appellate Court found no violation, where defendant’s statement was not “clear and unequivocal” invocation of his right to silence, because police could have construed statement as only acknowledgment that police had sufficient evidence and required nothing further from him. Defendant also submits that his multiple convictions on charge of concealment of homicidal death and dismembering of body are improper since his actions pertained to same homicidal death and he dismembered same human body; and (2) trial court improperly admitted videotape of defendant’s police interrogation, where said videotape included police statements of their belief in defendant’s guilt and statements that defendant had confessed to crime to others. Appellate Court, though, found that multiple convictions on concealment/dismembering offenses were proper as each conviction was based on discrete act, and admission of videotape was proper, because it was “useful” in showing that defendant was unaffected by police tactics during interrogation, and that there were flaws in defendant’s denials.