Criminal Law

Defendant convicted of aggravated battery after jury trial. Defendant claimed trial court abused its discretion by denying his right to self-representation. Defendant, who had been appointed an assistant PD, made pro se request on day of trial, which judge refused. Defendant became argumentative and was removed from courtroom, and trial proceeded in his absence. Court within its discretion to deny motion, as his motion was not unequivocal request to proceed pro se, as he asked to be allowed to go pro se or to be appointed a different PD; and motion not timely and was accompanied by implicit motion for continuance.

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder of wealthy couple after having fled to Mexico for ten years. Testimony elicited from his wife did not violate marital privilege, because wife was acting as Defendant's agent when, solely for his benefit, she followed his directions to lie about his activities on day of murders, register at motel under fictitious name, and borrow a car to drive to Mexico, thus was exception to marital privilege. Defense counsel's decision to present testimony of wife that Defendant told her he thought police were trying to pin crime on him, and that he was not guilty, was trial strategy, as a way to help establish his theory of case, not ineffective assistance of counsel. Few improper remarks in prosecutor's closing argument do not rise to level of reversible error nor cast doubt on reliability of verdict.

State presented evidence sufficient to prove that Defendant violated terms of his probation, thus court properly revoked Defendant's probation, in unambiguous testimony of probation officer that Defendant failed to appear at his office for a scheduled random drug test. Court's comment on lack of corroboration for Defendant's version of events was remark on court's weighing of evidence, rather than shifting burden from State to Defendant. Unified Code of Corrections, Section 5-6-4, allows probation officer to file petition for probation violation.

(Court opinion filed 3/19/20 withdrawn.) Defendant, who was convicted of Class 2 felony and sentenced as Class X offender because of his criminal history, is subject to MSR term of 3 years which applies to Class X offenders, rather than to 2-year MSR term which applies to Class 2 offenders.

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder of wealthy couple after having fled to Mexico for ten years. Testimony elicited from his wife did not violate marital privilege, because wife was acting as Defendant's agent when, solely for his benefit, she followed his directions to lie about his activities on day of murders, register at motel under fictitious name, and borrow a car to drive to Mexico, thus was exception to marital privilege. Defense counsel's decision to present testimony of wife that Defendant told her he thought police were trying to pin crime on him, and that he was not guilty, was trial strategy, as a way to help establish his theory of case, not ineffective assistance of counsel. Few improper remarks in prosecutor's closing argument do not rise to level of reversible error nor cast doubt on reliability of verdict.

Defendant convicted of aggravated battery after jury trial. Defendant claimed trial court abused its discretion by denying his right to self-representation. Defendant, who had been appointed an assistant PD, made pro se request on day of trial, which judge refused. Defendant became argumentative and was removed from courtroom, and trial proceeded in his absence. Court within its discretion to deny motion, as his motion was not unequivocal request to proceed pro se, as he asked to be allowed to go pro se or to be appointed a different PD; and motion not timely and was accompanied by implicit motion for continuance.