Criminal Law

Defendant was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment after conviction for unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. Defendant was improperly sentenced as a Class X offender pursuant to habitual offender provision of Unified Code of Corrections, because Defendant was convicted of his second qualifying offense on the day he was sentenced, not the day he pled guilty, and the Class X sentencing mandate in Seciton 5-5-3(c)(8) was not triggered, so that court lacked authority to sentence him as a Class X offender. (O'BRIEN and WRIGHT, concurring.)

Defendant pled guilty to robbery in exchange for four years of probation. Court later granted State' petition to revoke Defendant's probation, and sentenced him to six years in prison, as he was arrested for three criminal offenses while on probation. Court's finding, that Defendant had possession of cannabis and gun, which were in a brown paper bag which had been under Defendant's right thigh for an hour while he was sitting, was not against manifest weight of evidence. Bag was obscured from officer's initial view into the car which the officer had stopped and in which Defendant was a passenger. (HUTCHINSON and BURKE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of unlaweful use of a weapon based on 2005 incident. During jury selection in 2007 trial, the court did not question potential jurors as to whether they understood and accepted that the Defendant was not required to produce any evidence. Revised Supreme Court Rule 431(b), requiring such questioning, had taken effect two weeks prior. Defendant raised issue for the first time on appeal. No plain error, as the lack of questioning did not, in this case, necessarily result in a biased jury, and no indication that this jury was in fact biased. Jury had been admonished and instructed on these issues; defects did not render the trial fundamentally unfair or unreliable. Court declines to adopt a bright-line rule of reversal for every violation of Rule 431(b). (FITZGERALD, THOMAS, GARMAN, and KARMEIER, concurring.)

Defendant, then age 17, was convicted, after jury trial, with criminal sexual abuse of his 14-year-old girlfriend who was later found to be pregnant and who stated that the two had consensual intercourse. Judge told parties, after verdict, that during the deliberations the jury had sent a note saying that they were deadlocked 11 to 1, and the judge sent a note telling them to continue deliberating. Judge had not earlier informed parties or attorneys of these notes. Defendant did not object at the time of this revelation, but prevailed on the issue on appeal. No plain error, as the evidence was not closely balanced, and the judge's comment to the jury was not so serious that it affected the fairness of the trial or challenged the integrity of the judicial process. (FITGERALD, THOMAS, GARMAN, and KARMEIER, concurring; BURKE and FREEMAN, dissenting.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of first degree murder, home invasion and residential burglary; and death sentence was imposed at a nonjury capital hearing. Defendant had broken into a condominium unit when the resident arrived, and Defendant then killed resident and left with valuables; and he then burglarized a neighboring unit. Trial court was within its discretion in admitting the statement, which was sufficiently reliable, of Defendant's girlfriend as to his conduct immediately after the murder, and his mental state in the days following, which tended to show lack of remorse. Death sentence was not excessive, given consideration of factors in mitigation and aggravation, including Defendant's multiple prior burglary and attempted burglary convictions. (FITZGERALD, FREEMAN, THOMAS, KARMEIER, and BURKE, concurring.)

Bloomington police sergeant was convicted, after jury trial, of 37 counts of criminal conduct involving stalking, intimidation, home invasion, residential burglary, unlawful restraint, and aggravated criminal sexual assault of five women from the Bloomington-Normal area. Because Defendant failed to make an adequate formal offer of proof as to expert testimony, reviewing court cannot know whether the excluded testimony would have been admissible and would have aided the jury. Trial court recited Zehr principles to jurors at start of voir dire and also questioned the jurors as to their understanding and acceptance after dividing jurors into smaller panels where they collectively acknowledged their understanding and acceptance of principles, including that the Defendant was presumed innocent. Thus, court complied with Rule 431(b) in voir dire. Evidence was sufficient to show that the same perpetrator committed all the crimes in the case, and they were "signature crimes" of the same assailant. Statutory offense of aggravated criminal sexual assault predicated upon accused having been armed with a firearm violates the proportionate-penalties clause. (TURNER and APPLETON, concurring.)