Criminal Law

Defendant charged with DUI, and trial court granted her motion to rescind statutory summary suspension based on officer's failure to observe Defendant for 20 minutes. Statute requiring continuous 20-minute observation prior to obtaining breathalyzer reading is inapplicable, because Defendant refused breathalyzer; no requirement that officer must wait a given period of time before determining that person has refused to submit to testing.

Evidence was sufficient to prove Defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of aggravated criminal sexual assault of 15-year old girl; victim's statement of area of body where Defendant touched her, and intentional touching rather than inadvertent, were sufficiently specific. Admission of victim's account of assault, made via phone call 23 minutes later, was proper, as statement was made while "excitement of the event predominated", while victim was crying and hysterical.

Trial court's deferral of rulings on motions in limine to exclude evidence of prior convictions for impeachment purposes which is based on its "blanket policy" is unreviewable on appeal because Defendants chose not to testify at trial. Trial court did not err in responding to jury's question during deliberations requesting clarification of charges of intent to sell. Court properly responded by referring jury to their instructions, which were readily understandable and which explained the charged offense, and this was sufficient to clarify issue to jury. (Dissent filed).

Defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in vehicle in which he was a passenger, and which was owned by and being driven by another person; thus, court properly denied motion to suppress gun found under front passenger seat of vehicle. Officer searched vehicle after its owner refused consent, and Defendant was handcuffed and placed in squad car to facilitate search only after search was underway. Thus, alleged arrest did not lead to search and thus could not have tainted it with illegality. Defendant's statements, made at police station and after Miranda warnings given, were sufficiently attenuated from alleged arrest to purge any taint of illegality. Under one-act, one-crime rule, aggravated unlawful use of weapon is a more serious offense than unlawful possession of weapon by felon, thus latter conviction must be vacated.

Defendant was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to deliver. Prosecutor stated that Defendant had previously rejected reduced charge which was no longer available; and argued eligibility for mandatory Class X sentencing, which is 6-30 year range. Defendant argued, pro se at sentencing hearing, that he had no idea what he had been facing; and was then sentenced to 7 years. Defendant argued that his pro se statement was an implicit claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not advise him of possible penalties if offer was rejected. Statement was insufficient to require trial court inquiry, because Defendant did not mention his attorney or ineffectiveness during his statement at sentencing hearing.