Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted of domestic battery, after jury trial during which his girlfriend testified as to 2008 events in issue, and his ex-wife testified that he had previously abused her. Plain meaning of Section 115-7.4 of Criminal Code is that evidence of a defendant's commission of other acts of domestic violence may be admitted in a prosecution for one of the enumerated offenses, as long as the evidence is relevant and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by risk of prejudice. That Section is constitutional as it serves a legitimate purpose, and allowing such evidence to establish a defendant's propensity to commit a crime of domestic violence if requirements of statute and of other rules of evidence are met is rationally related to that purpose. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, THOMAS, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

Defendant was conficted with aggravated discharge of a firearm and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. Court informed jury that Defendant had a delinquency adjudication (but without identifying the offense), and that the offense would have been a felony had the Defendant been an adult. Court properly informed jury that a delinquency adjudication for what would be a felony for an adult is an element of the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, rather than using it as a factor to increase the sentence from a misdemeanor to a felony. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN, KARMEIER, and THEIS, concurring.)

(Court opinion withdrawn 9/30/10.) Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. Court's inquiry as to whether potential jurors "agreed with" Zehr principles was sufficient to confirm whether they accepted and understood the principles. Although State did not adduce the testimony of every custodian in the chain leading from seizure of drugs to their receipt by ISP lab chemist, State remedied gap in chain of custody by "matching descriptions" method, by testimony of officer and lab chemist; and Defendant did not identify any evidcence of actual tampering or substitution. Defendant, by not disputing ASA's statement of street value of $10, tacitly stipulated to the value. (JORGENSEN and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of aggravated vehicular hijacking. Defendant appealed from dismissal of his pro se postconviction petition, and argued ineffective assistance of counsel, maintaining that he had a federal constitutional right to appointment of counsel at first stage of postconviction proceedings. Postconviction proceedings are state statutory procedures in which there is no federal constitutional right to counsel at the summary dismissal stage, even if the proceeding may have been the first real opportunity to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, GARMAN, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

Respondent was adjudicated a sexually violent person in 2004 and was placed in custody of IDHS. Court revoked his conditional release on basis that Respondent had violated terms of conditional release plan, and he was returned to custody. Appeal is moot as State had received the relief it sought in its appeal, which was the return of Respondent to IDHS custoday. State failed to establish factors for the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, GARMAN, KARMEIER, and THEIS, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial trial of sex offenses against the two young sons of his ex-wife. Total of four counts were reversed, as there was no evidence corroborating them other than Defendant's own conviction. Independent corroborating evidence must relate to the specific events on which the prosecution of each offense is predicated. Two other convictions stand: predatory criminal sexual assault of one minor, age 15 at time of trial, and one count of predatory criminal sexual assault of another minor, age 8 at time of trial. No plain error in jury not having been given jury instruction as to how statements made by children should be evaluated, as an instruction was given which conveyed similar principles. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

Defendant, age 15 at time of incident, was sentenced to 24 years imprisonment, after conviction for aggravated discharge of a firearm and unlawful use of weapons. Defendant had fired five shots at another student, after confrontation, in a crowded high school hallway. Court had not relied upon any improper factors in sentencing within 6 to 30 year sentencing range, and properly concluded that nature and circumstances of offense, including that intended victim and numerous innocent bystanders were endangered. Appellate court improperly reweighed the sentencing factors in reducing sentence to 6 years. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN, KARMEIER, and THEIS, concurring.)

Trial court is not required to conduct an inquiry, prior to trial, into allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel that are raised by a defendant pro se. Until the proceedings have concluded, there is no way to determine if counsel's errors affected the outcome and thus no way of establishing prejudice under the Strickland v. Washington test. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN, KARMEIER, and THEIS, concurring.)

Defendant, age 18 at time of incident, was convicted of murder and aggravated battery with a firearm, from a gang-related shooting which resulted in one death and one wounding which rendered a victim a quadriplegic from spinal cord damage; that victim died of pneumonia five years later at age 22. After this death, jury convicted Defendant of first-degree murder for this victim's death. State presented sufficient causation evidence, as physician who performed autopsy concluded that victim, who never fully recovered from shooting, died as a result of quadriplegia, given his significant medical wasting, as a result of gunshot wound to the neck. Electronic recording requirement for custodial statements does not apply retroactively to bar the admission of Defendant's custodial statement made nearly 10 years prior to effective date of requirement. (FREEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN , KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)