Criminal Law

Defendant was found guilty of felony murder and appealed, arguing that the trial court erred when it allowed statements into evidence that were made by an unavailable witness. Defendant argued that the State was required to demonstrate good faith efforts to secure the witness at trial but failed to do so. The supreme court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing admission of the statements where the evidence showed, among other things, that the investigating officer utilized the information available to him to try to find the missing witness including visiting multiple addresses in different counties and states. (THEIS, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, CUNNINGHAM, ROCHFORD, and O’BRIEN, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a trial court order granting the State’s petition to deny pretrial release, arguing that the trial court failed to make the required written findings and that the petition to detain was not timely. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court complied with the requirements of the Act when it used a check-the-box form for its written decision and that the State’s petition was timely because it was permitted to file a petition to detain in response to the defendant’s motion seeking pretrial release. (HOLDRIDGE and DAVENPORT, concurring)

Defendant was charged with attempted murder and was released on cash bond prior to the implementation of the Pre-Trial Fairness Act. After the Act went into effect the State filed a petition for detention, which the trial court granted. Defendant appealed, arguing that the petition to detain was untimely. The appellate court agreed and reversed, explaining that under the language of the Act a defendant previously released will continue under the terms of the original bail bond unless there is a timely petition to detain or petition for revocation and that the State’s petition to detain was not timely because it was filed more than 21 days after the defendant’s arrest or release. (HUTCHINSON and KENNEDY, concurring)

Defendant appealed from the circuit court’s denial of his motion for pretrial release, arguing that the court abused its discretion when it found he posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons in the community. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion where the record established that the defendant was charged with threatening a public official, that he had made multiple threats to police officers, was on probation for aggravated assault of a peace officer, and lived close to a police station. (HOLDRIDGE, concurring and McDADE, dissenting)

Defendant appealed from a trial court order denying him release under the Pre-Trial Fairness Act, arguing that because he was previously detained on an inability to make cash bond and the State did not timely file a petition for detention, the State was barred from seeking pretrial detention. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while the State’s petition was untimely under section 110-6.1(c)(1) of the Act, it was appropriate and timely under section 110-6(g). (WELCH and CATES, concurring)

Defendant was indicated on two counts of aggravated battery of a peace officer and six counts of aggravated battery of a nurse. Defendant appealed from a trial court order granting the State’s motion for pre-trial detention, arguing that the court abused its discretion when it found that she was charged with a detainable offense. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that where the language of the Pre-Trial Release Act identified a subset of aggravated battery as a forcible felony, later reference to “other felony” must refer to felonies other than aggravated battery, not a different subset of aggravated battery and, as a result, that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the State’s petition. (HOLDRIDGE and PETERSON, concurring)

Defendant was convicted of aggravated discharge of a firearm, reckless discharge of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a firearm without a FOID card. On appeal, defendant argued that the State was required to show that he was aware that his FOID card was revoked and that the evidence was not sufficient to prove him guilty of aggravated discharge of a firearm and reckless discharge of a firearm. The appellate court reversed in part and affirmed in part, reversing the conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm without a FOID card because the State was required to prove that defendant knew his FOID card was not valid and affirmed the remaining convictions. (McDADE and DAVENPORT, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a trial court order denying him release under the Pre-Trial Fairness Act. On appeal, the State objected to defendant’s notice of appeal as being insufficient. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that defendant did not comply with SCR 604(h) when it relied on conclusory language and did not refer to evidence in the record for the court to evaluate his claims and also did not provide any legal argument or authority and, as a result, defendant forfeited the issues raised on appeal. (BARBERIS and BOIE, concurring)