Criminal Law

People v. Taylor

People v. Taylor
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Evidence
Silent-Witness Rule
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 2-07-0105
Decision Date: 
Thursday, February 4, 2010
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Lake Co.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded with directions.
Justice: 
Jorgensen
Under silent-witness rule, as applied to visual recordings, where no witness can testify as to authentication of video recording as accurately portraying what was seen or heard, foundation must be established via evidence as to capability of device for recording, competency of operator, proper operation of device, and preservation of unmodified recording; identity of person depicted in video not required for foundation. State failed to establish foundation of digital video recorder videotape placed in high school by detective. State did not establish that tape was unaltered, and did not explain how images shown were transferred from DVR to VHS tape, and tape contained obvious "jumps" in images. Tape was central to State's case and thus its admission was not harmless error.

People v. Cloyd

People v. Cloyd
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Guilty Pleas
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 4-09-0654
Decision Date: 
Thursday, February 4, 2010
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Livingston Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
KNECHT
Each of the elements of Rule 604(d), by which a defendant appeals from judgment entered on guilty plea, must be certified, including that trial counsel personally examined trial court file and sentencing transcript, or remand is required, for proceedings in strict compliance with Rule 604(d).

U.S. v. Zohfeld

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Zohfeld
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 08-3252
Decision Date: 
February 11, 2010
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 24-month term of incarceration on stalking charge even though Dist. Ct. relied, in part, on mental health treatment defendant may have received in prison to explain why incarceration, as opposed to probation, was appropriate disposition. Record showed that Dist. Ct. relied on several factors when imposing instant sentence, including fact that defendant's conduct had significantly impacted multiple people, and Dist. Ct.'s consideration of defendant's need for mental health treatment was not abuse of discretion.

U.S. v. Cruz

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Cruz
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 08-4194
Decision Date: 
February 11, 2010
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 10-year mandatory-minimum sentence on drug conspiracy charge even though defendant argued that he was entitled to 18-month deduction in sentence where defendant had previously served 18-month sentence on state drug offense that formed part of relevant conduct at issue in instant federal case. Statute under which defendant was sentenced (i.e., 18 USC section 841(b)(1)(A)) requires that offenders by sentenced to at least 10 years, and defendant failed to qualify for any exception to said statute. Moreover, defendant could not receive concurrent sentencing treatment in federal case based on discharged sentence in state conviction.

People v. Marino

People v. Marino
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Postconviction Petitions
Discovery
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 2-08-0242
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
DuPage Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
McLAREN
Late discovery of pre-existing claim does not absolutely preclude a defendant from filing a postconviction petition after statutory deadline; circumstances of discovery of claim, and actions taken to preserve it, are part of Section 122-1 determination of whether defendant was culpably negligent in filing late petition.

People v. Clinton

People v. Clinton
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Experts
Controlled Substances
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-08-0720
Decision Date: 
Friday, December 11, 2009
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
McBRIDE
Chemist cannot combine packets of substance to reach a specific weight prior to testing for presence of controlled substance, for State to meet its burden of proof as to weight of controlled substance. Evidence insufficient to establish intent to deliver where Defendant possessed 13 tin foil packets of suspected heroin and $40, but Defendant did not possess weapons, cell phone, pager, or drug paraphernalia, and police did not observe transaction or receive tip of suspicious drug activity.

U.S. v. Acox

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Acox
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-1258
Decision Date: 
February 9, 2010
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
In prosecution on bank robbery charge, defendant waived any error as to Dist. Ct.'s allowance of two bank employees to identify defendant as culprit where defendant claimed that said identifications were based on suggestive pre-trial photo array, and where defense counsel had failed to make pre-trial motion to suppress said testimony, as required under Rule 12(b)(3). Moreover, while defendant argued that failure to file pre-trial motion to suppress constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant could not raise issue on direct appeal since record did not show why counsel did not make said motion. Accordingly, defendant's only avenue for redress on ineffective assistance of counsel issue was future habeas petition.

U.S. v. Goodpasture

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Goodpasture
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 08-3328
Decision Date: 
February 8, 2010
Federal District: 
S.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
Dist. Ct. erred in sentencing defendant on unlawful possession of firearm charge to 180-month term of incarceration as armed career criminal under 18 USC section 924(e)(1) where said sentence was based, in part, on California conviction for lewd or lascivious act involving minor under age of 14. Said conviction did not qualify as violent felony for purposes of sentencing as armed career criminal since: (1) physical force was not element of said offense; and (2) govt. failed to show that California conviction, as generally committed, involved conduct that presented serious potential risk of physical injury.

U.S. v. Xiong

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Xiong
Criminal Court
Double Jeopardy
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-1410
Decision Date: 
February 8, 2010
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Defendant's convictions for arson, mail fraud, conspiracy to commit arson and mail fraud, and use of fire to commit another felony did not violate Double Jeopardy Clause even though all offenses arose out of defendant's actions in burning down his mother's supermarket to assist her in collecting insurance money. While defendant argued that Dist. Ct. could not impose separate sentence for each charged offense because sum of elements for offenses of arson, mail fraud and conspiracy equaled elements comprising use of fire to commit felony offense, Ct. of Appeals found that all convictions could stand under Blockburger, 284 US 299 since each offense contained element that other charged offenses did not require.

People v. Gabriel

People v. Gabriel
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Motion to Sever
Accountability
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-07-2231
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
QUINN
Identification by single witness is sufficient to support conviction, if Defendant is viewed in way to permit positive ID. Mere presence at crime scene, with knowledge of crime, does not establish accountability, but active participation is not required for accountability of one Defendant for another's acts. Sufficient to infer knowledge of criminal purpose and shared criminal design, where Defendant was present with co-Defendant prior to shooting, went with him to scene, pointed a gun in victims' direction while co-Defendant fired his gun, and fled scene with him. Severance of trial from that of co-Defendant not required; no hostility between the two defenses, as Defendant's alibi defense did not implicate co-Defendant.