Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Stevens was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault. The trial court had granted a motion in limine to admit other-crimes evidence, finding that the evidence was relevant to show propensity, motive and identity. On appeal he argued that his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated when he was compelled to testify on cross-examination about a pending sexual assault charge. He had testified that his sexual activity with a prior victim was consensual and the cross-examination involved a different prior victim. The trial court noted the similarities between the assaults and characterized his testimony as “disturbing in the extreme.” The court stated that even if the other-crimes evidence had not been admitted, the evidence against Stevens was so strong that it was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court affirmed defendant’s conviction, holding that the examination was proper because it discredited Stevens’s testimony, was probative of his intent and motive, and impeached his claim of consent. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the examination was proper to discredit a consent defense and test credibility. View "People v. Stevens" on Justia Law

Jolly was charged with unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. Prosecution evidence consisted largely of the testimony of Gunn, a confidential informant and drug addict, with three felony convictions for delivery of a controlled substance. Gunn had implemented a controlled buy from Jolly, but did not wear a surveillance wire and used his own cell phone to call Jolly. Gunn admitted that working as a confidential informant was his only source of income. Jolly was sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment as a Class X offender. He later filed a pro se motion, arguing that counsel failed to: move to reduce bond; obtain consent before waiving Jolly’s right to a speedy trial; appear in court during pretrial hearings; provide Jolly access to discovery materials; discuss trial strategy or visit Jolly; and prepare for trial while preparing for another criminal case. In a second pro se motion, he added failure to: object to testimony about recovered currency; challenge Gunn’s credibility; challenge the sufficiency of the evidence; object to police testimony that Jolly’s voice was recorded; object to the lack of testimony from experts on the state’s exhibits, including the admission of cocaine; move to dismiss for lack of evidence; and move to suppress the recovered cocaine and currency. Following a hearing with new counsel, the circuit court denied the motion. On remand, the trial court conducted a preliminary Krankel inquiry, but allowed the new public defender to be excused. Jolly proceeded pro se. The court permitted the state to participate in an adversarial manner and relied on matters outside the record. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the trial court’s errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the finding that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and remanded for a new preliminary Krankel inquiry. View "People v. Jolly" on Justia Law

Smith and others were indicted for first degree murder and aggravated discharge of a firearm in a 1998 shooting death. The jury found Smith guilty based on a theory of accountability. The appellate court affirmed. Smith filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate his claim that he suffered from a mental disability. Smith claimed he did not understand his Miranda rights and that, although he responded affirmatively to understanding those rights, his mental deficiency is such that he often gives responses that he thought others wanted to hear. Smith attached Social Security Administration documents indicating Smith was found disabled due to mental retardation, with an IQ of 74. Post-conviction counsel was appointed and indicated that an amended petition was not necessary. The trial court dismissed. The appellate court affirmed. The trial court denied Smith’s subsequent petition for leave to file a successive post-conviction petition. The appellate court affirmed, stating that a defendant must make a “more exacting” showing of cause and prejudice to merit leave to file a successive petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f). The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed; a defendant must show that the claim not raised in an initial post-conviction petition “so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violates due process.” The trial court twice instructed the jury that an opening statement is not evidence and, following closing argument, stated that “[n]either opening statement nor closing arguments are evidence, any statement… not based on the evidence should be disregarded.” During closing argument, the prosecutor acknowledged that Smith did not have a gun. Defense counsel pointed out in closing argument the inconsistency between the state’s opening and closing arguments. View "People v. Smith" on Justia Law

Holt threw eggs on the Katheiser driveway to frighten Kartheiser and his 6 year old daughter. Represented by counsel, she entered a negotiated guilty plea to resisting a peace officer. The other charge was nol-prossed. She was sentenced to 12 months of probation and was ordered to provide documentation of treatment. The court admonished Holt that the agreement involved a “conviction.” Days later, she filed a pro se motion to vacate, stating that she “was told there would be no conviction” and “never had the chance to testify.” Her counsel was allowed to withdraw. The circuit court granted the motion to withdraw the plea and appointed the public defender. The next day, Holt filed a pro se “Petition to Quash … the police report,” claiming tampering with the record, police brutality, and that her children were missing. After several more incidents, Holt was placed in a mental health center. She filed notice of appeal and a “Demand Letter for Formal Correction,” seeking to “hold Tim Brown accountable for ‘Bearing FALSE Witness’ the 8th Great Commandment and for Defamation.” The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that Holt had been found fit to stand trial during the pendency of the appeal so that whether she received effective assistance of counsel during proceedings below was moot. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, stating that public interest exception applies to warrant review. Where the evidence clearly indicates that defendant is unfit to stand trial, but a defendant contends that he is fit, counsel is not obligated to argue for a finding of fitness. In doing so, counsel would be violating his duty to the client and suborning a violation of due process. View "People v. Holt" on Justia Law

In 1993, Cordrey was sentenced to 36 years in prison for aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated kidnapping, with a three-year term of mandatory supervised release (MSR). In 2012, the Prisoner Review Board imposed MSR conditions. Cordrey was required to attend counseling, was prohibited from having contact with his victim, was required to have biweekly parole meetings, was required to register as a sex offender, with victim notification, and was subject to electronic monitoring. Cordrey was scheduled to begin MSR on April 12, 2013. That day, the Department of Corrections reported that Cordrey violated his parole because he had no suitable host site to serve his MSR. Cordrey was returned to prison to serve his MSR. Cordrey filed a grievance, followed by a pro se petition for habeas corpus. Counsel was appointed. The petition challenged the practice called “violating at the door” and alleged that more affluent offenders, who can afford suitable housing, can walk out of prison, while indigent offenders are returned to prison, in violation of constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. The Illinois Supreme Court denied the writ, reasoning that the Department of Corrections was unable to find placement for Cordrey due to his status as a sex offender, rather than his status as an indigent. The court noted the lack of evidence concerning housing options available for MSR, concerning whether both sex offender and non-sex offender indigent inmates are violated at the door, or whether there were alternates adequate to meet the state’s interests when there is no housing or funding available to inmates on MSR. View "Cordrey v. IL Prisoner Review Bd" on Justia Law

The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (Department) permanently revoked the health care licenses of physicians (plaintiffs) pursuant to the Department of Professional Regulation Law (20 ILCS 2105/2105-165) as a result of plaintiffs’ prior misdemeanor convictions for battery and criminal sexual abuse of their patients. The circuit court of Cook County dismissed their challenges. The appellate court and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting claims that the Act: did not apply to individuals who were convicted of a triggering offense prior to the Act’s effective date; was impermissibly retroactive and impaired certain fundamental rights, in violation of substantive due process; violated procedural due process; was unenforceable based on the res judicata effect of the previous discipline imposed by the Department; violated federal and state constitutional protections against double jeopardy; violated the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder; violated the federal takings clause; and violated federal and state constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto law. View "Hayashi v. IL Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulation" on Justia Law

The trial court concluded that section 5-615 of the Juvenile Court Act, 705 ILCS 405/5-615, was unconstitutional, and ordered a continuance under supervision in a case involving a minor, rejecting a negotiated plea agreement. The minor had been the subject of multiple charges and had failed to appear for court dates. The Illinois Supreme court vacated. The provision at issue grants a State’s Attorney, among others, authority to object to the entry of an order of continuance under supervision in a juvenile case before a finding of guilt. The court noted that juvenile proceedings are fundamentally different from criminal proceedings, a difference which extends to the role of the state. The purposes and objectives of the Juvenile Court Act are protective in nature, to correct and rehabilitate, not to punish, and the Act lists the State’s Attorney among those who would undoubtedly be concerned with the children’s best interests. The State’s Attorney has a duty to see that justice is done not only to the public at large, but to the accused as well. In this case, the state exercised its authority under section 5-615 in accordance with that duty.View "In re Derrico G." on Justia Law

Public Act 97-695 (eff. July 1, 2012), amended section 10 of the State Employees Group Insurance Act of 1971, 5 ILCS 375/10, by eliminating the statutory standards for the state’s contributions to health insurance premiums for members of three of the state’s retirement systems. The amendment requires the Director of Central Management Services to determine annually the amount of the health insurance premiums that will be charged to the state and to retired public employees. It is not limited to those who become annuitants or survivors on or after the statute’s effective date. The amendment was challenged by members of the affected entities: State Employees’ Retirement System (SERS), State Universities Retirement System (SURS), and Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS), as violation the pension protection clause, the contracts clause, and the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution. Certain plaintiffs added common-law claims based on contract and promissory estoppel. The Illinois Supreme Court, on direct review, reversed dismissal, stating that health insurance subsidies are constitutionally protected by the pension protection clause and rejecting an argument that only the retirement annuity itself is covered. View "Kanerva v. Weems" on Justia Law

The Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5/607(e), prohibits a non-custodial parent who has been convicted of a sexual offense perpetrated on a victim less than 18 years of age from obtaining court-ordered visitation with his children while serving his sentence and until successfully completing “a treatment program approved by the court.” A child abuse report was made to a hot line, alleging that Donald had sexually abused an unrelated minor. Donald pled guilty and was sentenced to two years’ probation. Donald was required to register as a sex offender, to provide a DNA sample, and to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases, but not required to obtain sex offender treatment. A court subsequently granted Donald’s ex-wife sole custody of their children suspended Donald’s visitation pursuant to section 607(e) Donald argued that a parent’s right to visitation with his child is a fundamental right, which the state may not abridge unless there is a compelling state interest and a finding that denying visitation is in the child’s best interest. The court agreed and found the law unconstitutional. The Illinois Supreme Court vacated, finding the matter moot. Donald successfully completed his probation. His cooperative participation in the sex offender evaluation, plus the evaluator’s assessment and recommendation that no further treatment was necessary, were sufficient to show compliance with section 607(e)’s requirement that he “successfully complete a treatment program approved by the court.” The court declined to apply the “public interest" exception.View "In re Marriage of Donald B." on Justia Law

Sheridan Liquors operated with a City of Peoria liquor license. Adnan owned the store; his brothers, Mike and Jalal managed the business, which included a check-cashing service. Mike and Jalal were indicted under the Money Laundering Control Act, 31 U.S.C. 5324(a)(3). To support the check-cashing operation, they withdrew large amounts of cash from Sheridan Liquors’ bank account and, knowing of federal reporting requirements, structured the withdrawal of more than $4 million to evade the requirements. Mike was convicted. Jalal fled the country. The city charged violation of a code section that prohibits any liquor licensee or its agent from engaging in activity in or about the licensed premises that is prohibited by federal law, claiming that the brothers conspired to unlawfully structure financial transactions. Sheridan Liquors maintained that Mike’s federal conviction should not have preclusive effect against it because Adnan was never permitted to present a defense in the federal proceeding. Sheridan argued that its insurance coverage had limits of $10,000 for cash on the premises and that structuring the transactions below $10,000 was not done to evade reporting requirements. The city presented testimony regarding loitering, litter, and potential drug use around the store. The Illinois Liquor Control Commission and the trial, appellate, and supreme courts affirmed revocation of the license, finding that Adnan’s due process rights were not violated. The court noted the 148-page transcript of the two-and-one-half-hour local hearing and that Sheridan had an opportunity to present evidence and defenses. Procedural due process does not guarantee an outcome, but only a meaningful opportunity to be heard. View "WISAM 1, Inc. v. IL Liquor Control Comm'n" on Justia Law