Criminal Law

Taylor v. Frey

Taylor v. Frey
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Due Process
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 5-08-0210
Decision Date: 
Monday, January 24, 2011
District: 
5th Dist.
Division/County: 
Alexander Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
CHAPMAN
Inmate serving sentence for first-degree murder and robbery and burglary filed complaint for mandamus relief, declaratory judgment, and permanent injunction. Court properly dismissed complaint, as a transfer to disciplinary segregation within the prison is not a dramatic departure from the prison environment, and does not implicate a liberty interest. Inmate was not denied due process as to his witness request for one disciplinary hearing because he failed to follow DOC rules for requesting witnesses, and the testimony he wanted to elicit would not have been relevant to the disciplinary infraction charged. (GOLDENHERSH and WELCH, concurring.)

People v. Berardi

People v. Berardi
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Jury Instructions
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 3-10-0122
Decision Date: 
Friday, January 21, 2011
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Fulton
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
McDADE
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of resisting a peace officer after he expressed his disagreement with police officer that he was required to leave city hall office after making a request to view the city budget, and then complied with officer's request by voluntarily leaving with officer for police department. Defendant did not resist an authorized act within meaning of statute, as his verbal disagreement included repeating that he was an alderman and expressing his belief that he had a legal right to be present, and he then almost immediately acquiesced to officer's authority. Court erred in refusing to instruct jury that not only argument, but a physical act of resistance was required to support conviction for resisting a peace officer. (HOLDRIDGE and O'BRIEN, concurring.)

Robinson v. Sherrod

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Robinson v. Sherrod
Criminal Court
Habeas Corpus
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 10-2147
Decision Date: 
January 26, 2011
Federal District: 
S.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing without prejudice defendant's habeas petition seeking order requiring prison medical staff to conduct certain diagnostic tests on his back. Habeas was wrong vehicle to address defendant's complaints since habeas cannot be used to challenge conditions of confinement. Moreover, while defendant could not currently file Bivens claim to address his back issues because he had not yet exhausted his administrative remedies, he is free to file said claim once exhaustion of remedies has taken place.

U.S. v. Garcia-Garcia

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Garcia-Garcia
Criminal Court
Search and Seizure
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-1840
Decision Date: 
January 25, 2011
Federal District: 
C.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Affirmed
In prosecution on charge of illegal re-entry into U.S. after having been deported, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress his arrest and statements made after his arrest on grounds that police lacked probable cause to make initial stop of defendant on traffic offense for obstruction of windshield. While defendant argued that air freshener hanging from his rear-view mirror was too small to constitute material obstruction, instant three by five inch object was large enough for officer to have reasonable belief that defendant had violated said statute at time of stop. Moreover, even if officer made illegal stop, his identification of defendant could not be suppressed, and thus prosecution could use officer's identification of defendant to establish key fact in charged offense.

People v. Dominguez

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Criminal Court
Guilty Plea
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
January 26, 2011
Docket Number: 
No. 111336
District: 
1ST Dist. Rule 23 Order.
This case presents issue as to whether trial court gave defendant adequate admonishments, when accepting defendant’s guilty plea to charge of criminal sexual assault of child. Appellate Court, in affirming trial court, found that defendant was substantially admonished of all of his appeal/post-plea rights where substance of Rule 605 was conveyed to defendant, and where defendant signed acknowledgment form. In his petition for leave to appeal, defendant argued that he was entitled to remand because: (1) certain rights were not conveyed to him; and (2) he was not conversant in English. Defendant also argued that review was appropriate to determine what, if any, prejudice must be established if trial court fails to strictly comply with Rule 605.

People v. Snyder

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
People v. Snyder
Criminal Court
Guilty Plea
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
January 26, 2011
Docket Number: 
No. 111382
District: 
3rd Dist.
This case presents question as to whether trial court properly ordered defendant to pay $2,891 in restitution where defendant entered into partially negotiated guilty plea to charges of intimidation and criminal damage to property, and where defendant was never specifically admonished prior to entering into guilty plea that restitution might be imposed as part of her sentence. Appellate Court, in vacating restitution award, found that trial court’s failure to advise defendant of possibility of restitution rendered her sentence more onerous than what trial court’s admonishments indicated it would be. (Dissent filed.)

People v. Austin M.

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
People v. Austin M.
Criminal Court
Conflict of Interest
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
January 26, 2011
Docket Number: 
No. 111194
District: 
4th Dist.
This case presents issue as to whether defense counsel in juvenile court proceeding labored under per se conflict of interest where counsel represented respondent and his corresponding brother under circumstances where respondent’s brother was one of three alleged victims of sexual abuse named in respondent’s delinquency petition. Appellate Court, in affirming trial court’s eventual adjudication that found respondent guilty of misdemeanor criminal sexual abuse, held that no such victim-based conflict of interest existed because neither respondent nor his brother implicated each other as part of their defenses against sexual abuse allegations lodged by third party. (Dissent filed.)

People v. Torres

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
January 26, 2011
Docket Number: 
No. 111302
District: 
1st Dist. Rule 23 Order.
This case presents issue as to whether trial court properly admitted transcripts of preliminary hearing testimony of key govt. witness in defendant’s murder trial, which occurred 24 years after defendant had fled state. Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, found that admission of said transcripts violated defendant’s right of confrontation since defendant did not have adequate opportunity to effectively cross-examine witness during preliminary hearing with respect to potential bias of witness, as well as witness’ residency status and witness' alleged inconsistent statements given to police about what he saw at scene of crime.

People v. Leach

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
People v. Leach
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
January 26, 2011
Docket Number: 
No. 11534
District: 
1st Dist.
This case presents issue as to whether trial court properly admitted autopsy findings of forensic pathologist, who did not testify at defendant’s murder trial. Appellate Court, in affirming trial court, rejected defendant’s argument that said testimony violated his confrontation rights as set forth in Crawford, 541 US 36, since autopsy reports are not testimonial in nature and were properly admitted under business record exception to hearsay rule. Moreover, said report was not offered to prove truth thereof, but rather, was used to explain basis of pathologist’s expert opinion.

People v. Hunt

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
People v. Hunt
Criminal Court
Confession
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
January 26, 2011
Docket Number: 
No. 111089
District: 
1st Dist.
This case presents issue as to whether trial court properly suppressed recorded jailhouse statements about then-uncharged offense that defendant made to police informant posing as fellow inmate, where statements were recorded after defendant had made request to speak with counsel. Appellate Court found that govt. did not violate any 5th Amendment rights since federal case law did not view interrogation by police informant under instant circumstances to be custodial interrogation. However, Appellate Court, in suppressing said statements, found that govt. violated defendant’s rights under Ill. Constitution and statutes since, under McCauley, 163 Ill.2d 414, said questioning by police informant was tantamount to custodial interrogation.