Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted of criminal sexual assault of his minor stepdaughter. Court erred in not asking each potential juror whether he or she understood each of the four Zehr principles; however, potential jurors indicated that they could follow admonitions and strictures that the judge related to them, so that it was reasonable to conclude that they had sufficient understanding to comply with them. Atmosphere of the voir dire was conducive to any potential jurors asking questions if they did not understand any of the principles; thus, Defendant was not denied right to fair and impartial jury. Defendant was not denied a fair trial by court's failure to question all of the jurors about the principle that Defendant was not required to present any evidence, as Defendant did present evidence through trial testimony of himself and his wife. (McLAREN and HUTCHINSON, concurring.)

Defendant filed postconviction petition alleging that court failed to inform him during plea hearing that he would serve three year term of MSR after 16-year sentence. At hearing, court stated what required sentencing range was, what possible fine was, and that Defendant would have to serve at least three years MSR. Court duly advised Defendant of MSR term prior to accepting Defendant's guilty plea, and made clear by its choice of language that 3-year MSR period was mandatory. (HALL and PATTI, concurring.)

Defendant entered plea of guilty to armed robbery and home invasion. At plea hearing, court admonished Defendant only as to what maximum penalties might be imposed, but did not link the term of MSR to the actual sentences that the Defendant would receive under the plea, and did not convey unconditionally that MSR would be added to the agreed-upon sentences. Thus, admonishment did not comply with due process. (ZENOFF and BURKE, concurring.)

Defendant, a pathologist, was convicted of first degree murder, obstructing justice, and concealment of a homicidal death, charged with killing her autistic daughter, age 3, by suffocation. Court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress her inculpatory statements to police, as she made inculpatory statements to six persons prior to speaking to police. Defendant was not in custody at time of statements, as she was not restrained and was not coerced to speak; and police did not deliberately use a question first, warn later technique. Defendant was not denied a fair trial by being required to wear an electronic monitoring device during trial, because wearing the device had been a condition of her bond. Court properly addressed potential negative impact by admonishing jury that the device did not affect presumption of innocence. Court properly found that Defendant failed to prove insanity, as evidence revealed a calculated plan to kill the daughter, and deliberate actions to conceal her actions. (CARTER, concurring; WRIGHT, specially concurring.)