Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from an order of the circuit court granting the State’s petition to deny pretrial release, arguing that the petition was not timely. The appellate court, with one justice dissenting, affirmed finding that defendant failed to raise the issue at the trial court and, as a result, it was forfeited. The appellate court also concluded that the defendant was not entitled to relief under plain error review. (WELCH, concurring and McHANEY, dissenting)

Defendant pleaded guilty to drug-induced homicide and elected to be sentenced under section 5-4-1(c-1.5) of the Unified Code of Corrections. After holding a sentencing hearing the trial court sentenced defendant to six years in prison, which was the mandatory minimum. The trial court found section 5-4-1(c-1.5) did not apply to drug-induced homicide. Defendant appealed, arguing that section 5-4-1(c-1.5) applies to drug-induced homicide and that the trial court failed to set the manner and method of paying restitution in light of defendant’s ability to pay. The appellate court vacated defendant’s sentence and remanded with instructions that the trial court consider imposing a sentenced under section 5-4-1(c-1.5) and take into account the defendant’s ability to pay. (MULLEN, concurring and JORGENSEN, specially concurring)

Defendant appealed from the trial court’s denial of pretrial release under the Pre-Trial Fairness Act. Defendant argued on appeal that the State’s petition to deny his release were untimely and asked that his monetary bond be reinstated. The appellate court affirmed, finding that defendant had elected to forgo posting monetary bond and sought reconsideration of the bond requirement for pretrial release and that the State could oppose that request. (SCHOSTOK and KENNEDY, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to concurrent six-year prison terms. Defendant argued on appeal that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with the intent to kill and, alternatively, that the trial court erred in requiring shackles during trial. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the evidence of intent was not merely sufficient but “overwhelming” and that the jury was not required to find defendant’s self-serving statements regarding intent as credible. The appellate court further found that while the trial court committed error when it failed to follow the statutory process for using restraints during trial, it was harmless error because the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming. (JORGENSEN and BIRKETT, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of unlawful cannabis trafficking, unlawful possession with intent to deliver, and unlawful possession of cannabis and was sentenced to prison for 10 years. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence because the investigating officer did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion to seize defendant’s vehicle and because the officer did not have probable cause to allow a drug sniffing dog to search the exterior of the vehicle. The appellate court affirmed, finding that a dog sniff of the exterior of a car parked in a public place was not a search or a seizure and that the dog’s alert gave the officer probable cause to search the vehicle. (TURNER and ZENOFF, concurring)

Defendant was arrested for criminal damage to government-supported property and was released from custody after paying a bond. After the Pre-Trial Fairness Act defendant missed a court appearance and a warrant was issued for his arrest. The State moved to revoke the bond and the trial court granted the motion and ordered defendant be detained until the conclusion of the case. The appellate court reversed, explaining the Act does not permit for the revocation of pretrial release for the mere failure to appear. The appellate court noted that the trial court had the authority to issue sanctions for the failure to appear, which include incarceration for up to 30 days. (HOWSE and COBBS, concurring)

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 40 years in prison. Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the trial court granted. The trial court ordered a new trial and the State filed a motion in limine to admit the prior testimony of a deceased witness. The trial court denied the motion and the State appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the emergence of evidence concerning two known and alternate suspects would have opened a new line of questioning of the witness if she were still alive and, as a result, the testimony would have been tested in a way not present at the first trial which favored the barring of the witness’ prior testimony. (HOWSE and ELLIS, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder and armed robbery and sentenced to a total prison term of 76 years. On direct appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred in granting the State’s request for an extension of the speedy trial term, that the trial court improperly allowed hearsay evidence and evidence of other crimes, and that the prosecutor improperly relied on that evidence in closing as evidence of defendant’s guilt. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in the admission of other crimes and hearsay evidence and that the evidence was not so overwhelming as to render the error harmless. (HOWSE and COBBS, concurring)