Criminal Law

U.S. v. McGuire

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. McGuire
Criminal Court
Reasonable Doubt
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-1597
Decision Date: 
December 2, 2010
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction under 18 USC section 2423(c) of traveling in interstate commerce for purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct where record showed that defendant-priest sexually molested 13-year-old boy during his travels to religious retreats. While defendant argued that record failed to establish that purpose of trips was to engage in sex, record supported instant conviction where purpose of instant travel was to attend retreat in company of boy that defendant intended to molest. Fact that business was transacted during trip did not preclude instant conviction where defendant had broad latitude concerning number and location of retreats and actually configured his travels to optimize his sexual activity.

People v. Becker

People v. Becker
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Expert Witnesses
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 108986
Decision Date: 
Thursday, December 2, 2010
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Peoria Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court reversed.
Justice: 
KARMEIER
Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and criminal sexual assault, the alleged victim being his three-year old daughter. On appeal, convictions were overturned, the court having found that Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel. Court properly excluded, at subsequent jury trial, the expert testimony of defense psychologist expert as to reliability/credibility of hearsay statements made by child to her mother. Expert testimony would have, for practical purposes, instructed jury to disregard child's statements, even though expert had not interviewed child, and would improperly involve one witness commenting on the credibility of another witness. Expert's observations as to child's susceptibility to suggestion were within ken of average juror. Defendant could have apprised jury of circumstances of child's statements through other witnesses, and expert's testimony was of limited probative value. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

People v. Unander

People v. Unander
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Fines and Costs
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 4-09-0411
Decision Date: 
Thursday, November 18, 2010
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Champaign Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed as modified; remanded with directions.
Justice: 
POPE
(Modified upon denial of rehearing 10/26/10; court's prior opinion of 9/28/10 withdrawn.) Defendant pled guilty to residential burglary and was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment; Defendant appealed imposition of fees and DNA assessment. $5 drug-court fee is actually a fine, as revenue from charges imposed are intended for operaiton of drug court, rather than to reimburse State for costs of prosecution. As court stated that if Defendant had not already done so, he was to submit a DNA specimen and pay the DNA-analysis fee, and Defendant had already done so, DNA-analysis fee was wrongly imposed. Amendment to medical costs fund fee statute indicates intent that fee be collected regardless of whether a Defendant incurs any injury. VCVA assessment should be mofied to $4 because Defendant's remaining fines total less than $40. (McCULLOUGH, concurring; MYERSCOUGH, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

U.S. v. Maulding

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Maulding
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-3103
Decision Date: 
November 30, 2010
Federal District: 
C.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to below-guidelines, 240-month term of incarceration on receipt, possession and distribution of child pornography charges even though defendant argued that said sentence was unreasonable because sentencing guideline itself is flawed, and because his criminal history, which contained series of traffic convictions, was overstated. Under Huffstatler, 571 F.3d 620, Dist. Ct. is not required to disregard instant sentencing guideline, although it is free to do so, and instant sentence was reasonable given Dist. Ct.'s consideratioun of factors contained in section 3553(a).

U.S. v. Nunez

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Nunez
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 10-1384
Decision Date: 
November 30, 2010
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to mandatory minimum 60-month term of incarceration on drug distribution charge after finding that defendant was not eligible for safety valve adjustment so as to permit lower sentence. Said denial occurred after Dist. Ct. had concluded that defendant had not fully provided to govt. all information concerning charged offense, and record supported Dist. Ct.'s conclusion where that defendant had refused to identify his customers or explain role of his co-defendants in instant drug-selling scheme. Moreover, while defendant argued that Dist. Ct. had improperly relied on hearsay statements from undisclosed informant to support instant denial of safety valve adjustment, Dist. Ct. could deem informant's statements as reliable evidence where portions of said statements had been corroborated by other evidence.

People v. Grubbs

People v. Grubbs
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Fines and Fees
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 3-09-0358, 3-09-0564 Cons.
Decision Date: 
Monday, November 8, 2010
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Will Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed as modified; remanded.
Justice: 
McDADE
Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, and sentenced to probation and $1060 in costs. Genetic marker analysis assessment of $200 imposed pursuant to Section 5-4-3 of Unified Code of Corrections is a fine that qualifies for the $5 per day credit. Case remanded to determine whether court imposed any other fines that would be eligible for offset. (HOLDRIDGE and O'BRIEN, concurring.)

People v. Clemons

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
November 24, 2010
Docket Number: 
No. 107821
District: 
4th Dist. Rule 23 Order
This case presents question as to whether defendant is entitled to new sentencing hearing where, according to defendant, his 25-year sentence on charge of armed robbery while armed with firearm violates Proportionate-Penalties Clause. Appellate Court, in remanding matter for new sentencing hearing, found that under Hauschild, 226 Ill.2d 63, said sentence violated Proportionate-Penalties Clause since defendant’s charged offense had identical elements to armed violence charge that had lower sentencing range. In its petition for leave to appeal, State urged Ct. to reconsider Hauschild’s method of applying identical elements test of Proportionate-Penalties Clause.

People v. Hill

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
People v. Hill
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
November 24, 2010
Docket Number: 
No. 110928
District: 
1st Dist.
This case presents question as to whether defendant is entitled to new sentencing hearing on his 1st degree murder conviction, in which he received 60-term of incarceration, where trial court denied defendant’s motion to strike State’s notice of intent to seek death penalty, which was not filed until 247 days after his arraignment, in contravention with Rule 416(c). Although it rejected State’s argument that defendant’s argument was now moot in light of term of years sentence that was actually imposed, Appellate Court, in denying defendant’s request for new sentencing hearing, found that defendant had failed to show any actual prejudice resulting from State’s untimely filing where he had received all protections that would have been given to defendants facing potential death sentence.

People v. Adams

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
People v. Adams
Criminal Court
Prosecutorial Misconduct
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
November 24, 2010
Docket Number: 
No. 111168
District: 
3rd Dist.
This case presents question as to whether, in prosecution on drug possession charge, prosecutor committed plain error during closing argument by claiming that police officers would not risk their careers by planting drugs on defendant and by indicating that one officer had drafted report when no such report had been admitted into evidence. Appellate Court found that defendant was entitled to new trial since: (1) prosecutor's observation during closing argument had improperly bolstered govt. witnesses based on their status as police officers; and (2) prosecutor had misstated evidence in record.

People v. Baskerville

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Criminal Court
Reasonable Doubt
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
November 24, 2010
Docket Number: 
No. 111056
District: 
3rd Dist. Rule 23 Order
This case presents question as to whether record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction on charge of obstructing police officer where record showed that defendant gave false information to police officer during officer’s attempted traffic stop of defendant’s wife. Appellate Court, in reversing defendant’s conviction, found that said evidence was insufficient to prove charged offense because providing false information to police officer did not amount to proof of physical act as required under Raby, 40 Ill.2d 392. In its petition for leave to appeal, State argued that physical act of providing false information was sufficient to satisfy statute. (Dissent filed.)