Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A firearms dealer in Madison County filed a lawsuit against the Illinois Attorney General, challenging the constitutionality of a state statute known as the Firearms Industry Responsibility Act. The plaintiff argued that the statute was preempted by federal law, void for vagueness, violated the Second Amendment, and violated the Illinois Constitution's three-readings rule. Additionally, the plaintiff contended that the venue provision, which limited venue to Sangamon and Cook Counties for actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief from a constitutional challenge to a state statute, was unconstitutional as it violated federal due process rights.The circuit court of Madison County denied the Attorney General's motion to transfer the case to Sangamon County and granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the venue issue. The court found that transferring the case to Sangamon County would be inconvenient for the plaintiff and would deprive it of its ability to effectively challenge the statute. The court concluded that the venue provision was unconstitutional as applied to individuals residing or injured outside of Cook or Sangamon Counties.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court's decision. The court held that the venue provision did not violate the plaintiff's due process rights. The court emphasized that the inconvenience of traveling to Sangamon County did not rise to the level of a due process violation, especially considering the availability of remote court proceedings. The court also noted that the legislature has the authority to determine venue and that the state's interest in consolidating actions in certain counties was reasonable. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Piasa Armory, LLC v. Raoul" on Justia Law

Ralph Harris was convicted in three separate cases involving murder, attempted robbery, and aggravated criminal sexual assault. He filed an omnibus motion to suppress his confessions, alleging they were obtained through physical and mental coercion by detectives. The circuit court denied the motion, finding the confessions were voluntary. Harris was convicted, and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.Harris then filed postconviction petitions under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, alleging newly discovered evidence of a pattern of police torture corroborated his claims of coerced confessions. The circuit court advanced the petitions to a third-stage evidentiary hearing but ultimately denied relief, finding the new evidence did not prove his confessions were coerced. Harris appealed, and the appellate court reversed, remanding for a new suppression hearing to consider the new evidence.On remand, a new judge conducted the suppression hearing and denied Harris's coercion claim but vacated his convictions and ordered new trials, citing the potential impact of the new evidence on a jury. The State appealed, arguing the appellate court had jurisdiction to review the circuit court's order. Harris moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming it was an unauthorized interlocutory appeal.The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the appellate court had jurisdiction to consider the State’s appeal. The court found that the appellate court in Harris I had not vacated Harris’s convictions or ordered new trials but had remanded for a new suppression hearing. The proceedings on remand were a continuation of the postconviction proceedings, resulting in a final order from which the State could appeal. The court reversed the appellate court's dismissal and remanded for consideration of the State's appeal. View "People v. Harris" on Justia Law

Jatterius L. Yankaway was arrested on April 7, 2020, for allegedly shooting Robert Hunter on July 26, 2019. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Illinois Supreme Court had tolled speedy-trial terms in criminal proceedings. On September 19, 2022, a jury found Yankaway guilty of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated battery, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (UPWF). The Peoria County circuit court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms for attempted murder and aggravated battery but reserved sentencing on the UPWF conviction.On appeal, Yankaway argued ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a speedy-trial demand under the intrastate detainers statute, that his convictions violated the one-act, one-crime rule, and that the circuit court misapprehended the minimum sentence for attempted first-degree murder. The appellate court affirmed in part, finding no ineffective assistance as Yankaway could not show prejudice, and no plain error in sentencing. However, it vacated the aggravated battery conviction under the one-act, one-crime rule and remanded for sentencing on the UPWF conviction.The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the appellate court's judgment regarding counsel's effectiveness but on different grounds, and it affirmed the sentencing for Yankaway’s convictions. The court found that the intrastate detainers statute did not apply to Yankaway as he was not committed to the Department of Corrections when the State proceeded on one of his charges. The court also found that defense counsel performed deficiently by failing to object to a continuance but held that this did not prejudice Yankaway as the continuance was attributable to him. The court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in attributing the continuance to Yankaway and denying his motion to dismiss. Finally, the court found no plain error in the sentencing decision. The part of the appellate court judgment remanding for sentencing on the UPWF conviction was vacated. View "People v. Yankaway" on Justia Law

Travaris T. Guy was convicted of attempted first degree murder and second degree murder for the shooting of David Woods Sr. and Sheena Woods. The jury found that Guy acted with the intent to kill but also believed his actions were lawfully justified, which led to an inconsistent verdict. Guy did not raise this issue on direct appeal or in his initial postconviction petition but later filed a successive postconviction petition claiming inconsistent verdicts and ineffective assistance of counsel.The Will County circuit court denied relief on the inconsistent verdict claim but granted a new trial on a separate claim. The appellate court reversed Guy’s attempted first degree murder conviction, holding that the jury instruction misstated the law, the conviction was inconsistent with the second degree murder conviction, and the jury’s finding of self-defense precluded a guilty verdict for attempted first degree murder.The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court’s judgment in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the circuit court to sentence Guy on the lesser-included offense of aggravated battery with a firearm. The court held that a conviction for attempted first degree murder requires proof of intent to kill without lawful justification. The jury instruction was erroneous as it only required intent to kill. The jury’s finding that Guy believed in the need for self-defense was incompatible with the intent required for attempted first degree murder. The court also found that Guy’s attorneys were ineffective for failing to properly raise these issues. View "People v. Guy" on Justia Law

Michael Williams pled guilty to two counts of aggravated battery with a firearm and was sentenced to two consecutive 10-year terms. Williams later filed a postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming his trial counsel allowed the trial judge's son to participate in a pre-plea meeting. The circuit court dismissed the petition at the second stage of postconviction proceedings.The appellate court reversed the circuit court's dismissal, finding that Williams's postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance by failing to adequately support the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The appellate court remanded the case for further second-stage proceedings with new counsel.The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the appellate court's decision. The Supreme Court held that Williams's postconviction counsel did not provide unreasonable assistance. The court noted that the postconviction petition survived the first stage and was not found deficient or frivolous by the trial court. The Supreme Court found no evidence in the record to suggest that additional facts or arguments could have been included in the petition to support Williams's claim. The court concluded that the arguments made by postconviction counsel were the best options available under the circumstances, even if they were ultimately unsuccessful. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment dismissing Williams's postconviction petition. View "People v. Williams" on Justia Law

Irma Jordan filed a negligence complaint against Esmerelda Macedo in the circuit court of Cook County following a car accident. The case was referred to mandatory arbitration, where the arbitrator awarded Jordan $13,070. Neither party rejected the award, and Jordan submitted it to the circuit court for judgment. Jordan then filed a motion seeking prejudgment interest and statutory costs, which the circuit court denied, stating the arbitration award included the full amount to be reduced to judgment.The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's denial of statutory costs but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest. The appellate court held that Jordan should have requested costs during arbitration, referencing the Cruz v. Northwestern Chrysler Plymouth Sales, Inc. decision. However, it agreed that prejudgment interest could be requested in the circuit court as it is not considered damages.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and held that, according to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 92(e), statutory costs can be sought during arbitration, but failure to do so does not waive the right to seek them in the trial court upon entry of judgment. The court found that Rule 92(e) allows for statutory costs to be requested in the trial court even if not addressed by the arbitrator. The court reversed the appellate court's judgment regarding statutory costs and affirmed the judgment regarding prejudgment interest. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Jordan v. Macedo" on Justia Law

The Village of Arlington Heights filed a complaint against the City of Rolling Meadows in Cook County circuit court to recover misallocated sales tax revenue. Cooper’s Hawk Winery and Restaurants, located in Arlington Heights, was mistakenly coded in the Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR) records as being in Rolling Meadows. As a result, sales taxes generated by Cooper’s Hawk from June 2011 to March 2020 were disbursed to Rolling Meadows. Arlington Heights discovered the error in March 2020 and notified IDOR, which reimbursed Arlington Heights for six months of tax revenues but advised them to seek an agreement with Rolling Meadows for the remaining funds. Unable to reach an agreement, Arlington Heights filed a complaint seeking the misallocated taxes.The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, citing the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in City of Chicago v. City of Kankakee, which held that IDOR has exclusive jurisdiction over tax disputes. The Appellate Court, First District, reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that the trial court had jurisdiction over straightforward sales tax disputes that do not require agency expertise, relying on Village of Itasca v. Village of Lisle.The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that IDOR has exclusive jurisdiction over tax matters, including misallocation disputes, as established in City of Chicago v. City of Kankakee. The court found that the statutory framework grants IDOR the authority to handle tax disputes and that the trial court’s jurisdiction is limited to cases involving unlawful rebate agreements. The court concluded that the trial court correctly dismissed Arlington Heights’ complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and reversed the appellate court’s judgment. The trial court’s dismissal of the complaint was affirmed. View "Village of Arlington Heights v. City of Rolling Meadows" on Justia Law

The defendant, Kendall Cecil Morgan, was charged with home invasion and domestic battery for allegedly entering Vanessa Williams' apartment without authority and striking her in the face. The State filed a petition to deny Morgan pretrial release, citing the charges and arguing that his release posed a threat to the community. At the detention hearing, the State presented evidence of the charges and Morgan's criminal history, including a previous conviction for armed robbery and pending cases for DUI and battery. The defense argued that Morgan had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and suggested conditions like electronic monitoring and mental health treatment.The McLean County Circuit Court found that the State had established by clear and convincing evidence that Morgan committed the offenses, posed a threat to the community, and that no conditions could mitigate his dangerousness. The court granted the State's petition to deny pretrial release. Morgan appealed, arguing that the State had not met its burden and that the appellate court should review the circuit court's decision de novo.The Illinois Appellate Court reviewed the circuit court's decision for an abuse of discretion and upheld the denial of pretrial release. The appellate court reasoned that the circuit court's ability to observe the defendant warranted deference, even when the evidence was presented by proffer.The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine the appropriate standard of review for pretrial detention decisions under section 110-6.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that when live testimony is presented, the circuit court's decision should be reviewed under the manifest weight of the evidence standard. However, when the parties proceed solely by proffer, the reviewing court should conduct a de novo review. Applying de novo review, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment denying Morgan pretrial release. View "People v. Morgan" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance after a stipulated bench trial. The conviction stemmed from evidence found in a locked kitchen cabinet during a warrantless search by police officers who were investigating a gas leak in the defendant's home. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant was subsequently convicted.The Second District Appellate Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the police officers' actions were permissible under the community caretaking or emergency aid exceptions to the warrant requirement. The appellate court found that the use of a flashlight to look into the cabinet did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. One justice dissented, arguing that the use of the flashlight to peer into a locked cabinet was a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' judgments. The court held that the contraband found in the locked cabinet was not in plain view and that the police officers' actions constituted an unreasonable search. The court concluded that the use of a flashlight to look into the cabinet, which was secured with a chain and padlock, amounted to a search that was not justified by the emergency aid or community caretaking exceptions. As a result, the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed the defendant's conviction and vacated his sentence. View "People v. Hagestedt" on Justia Law

The case involves the transition from a pretrial system with monetary bail to one without it, as per amendments to the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure. Damarco Watkins-Romaine, charged with multiple serious offenses, was ordered released pending trial with a $350,000 bail, which he could not pay. After the amendments abolishing monetary bail took effect, he petitioned for release, arguing that the financial condition was improper. The State responded with a petition to detain him under the new Code.The Cook County circuit court denied Watkins-Romaine's petition for release. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the legislature did not intend to allow the State to file a petition for pretrial detention under these circumstances and that the State's petition was untimely.The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the appellate court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the State may file a petition to detain a defendant pretrial in response to a defendant’s petition to remove the condition of monetary bail, even if the defendant had been ordered released but could not satisfy the previously set monetary bail. The court found that the procedures followed in the circuit court were fair and consistent with the amended Code. The case was remanded to the appellate court to consider Watkins-Romaine's remaining contentions. View "People v. Watkins-Romaine" on Justia Law