Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Leib was convicted of being a child sex offender in a school zone when persons under the age of 18 were present in the building or on the grounds, 720 ILCS 5/11-9.3(a), and was sentenced to one year in prison. He argued that the prosecution failed to establish that he was on “real property comprising any school” and that, even if the property at issue was properly considered “real property comprising any school,” the state failed to establish that Leib knew he was on such property. Leib had been present at a festival in a parking lot for a church and school.The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. There is evidence that the parking lot is used for school purposes and is owned by the parish, which owned the church and school, and that the church and school were connected to each other and considered to be synonymous. The layout of the festival itself indicates Leib was aware of a substantial probability that the parking lot is located on school grounds. View "People v. Leib" on Justia Law

In 2015, Aljohani was indicted on five counts of first-degree murder in connection with the stabbing death of Talal and one count of armed robbery. The circuit court denied a motion to suppress evidence. The court concluded that the officers’ entry into an apartment fell “squarely within the community caretaking function.” In 2018, Aljohani was convicted and sentenced to 23 years in prison. The appellate court affirmed, citing the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement.The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the evidence was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The police officers had reasonable grounds to believe an emergency existed, having responded to a 911 call about a suspected battery in progress and spoken to a witness, who was “adamant” that someone was seriously hurt. The officers saw an apartment door “wide open,” received no response, and found the victim unresponsive on a bed. The totality of the circumstances at the time of entry provided an objective, reasonable basis for believing someone was injured inside the apartment. View "People v. Aljohani" on Justia Law

In 2017, Brown was charged with violating section 2(a)(1) of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1)), which requires a person who possesses a firearm in Illinois to have a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card issued by the State Police. Brown challenged section 2(a)(1) as unconstitutional as applied under the Second Amendment. The circuit court dismissed the charge, finding that the legislature did not intend for the FOID Act to apply in a person’s home because “such an interpretation would lead to absurd and unworkable results.”The Illinois Supreme Court stated: “The circuit court’s ruling that section 2(a)(1) … is unconstitutional as applied was not necessary to the resolution of this case. Therefore, we remand this cause … direct that the order … be vacated." When the cause was remanded, the matter proceeded before a new judge, who adopted the reasoning of an Illinois Supreme Court dissent and again found the section unconstitutional as applied.The Illinois Supreme Court again vacated and remanded. The circuit court had no authority to set aside the directions on remand and enter a different order. The mandate was “precise and unambiguous.” On remand, “the circuit court shall not entertain any motion from any party, nor take any action other than entering the modified order.” View "People v. Brown" on Justia Law

Sroga was convicted of a Class A misdemeanor under the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/4-104(a)(4)) for displaying an unauthorized license plate on a vehicle. He later filed a petition under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401, asserting that his conviction violated the Illinois proportionate penalties clause (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, 11). He argued that section 3-703 of the Vehicle Code created a Class C misdemeanor covering the same conduct for which he was convicted but imposed a lesser penalty. Neither provision contained an express mental state requirement.The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition. The court inferred a requisite mental state of knowledge for Sroga’s section 4-104(a)(4) conviction and concluded that the parallel provision in section 3-703 imposes absolute liability. Although the two offenses criminalize the same physical act, they possess different mental state requirements. Because section 4-104(a)(4) has an inferred mental state of knowledge and section 3-703 imposes absolute liability, the imposition of harsher punishment for a conviction under section 4-104(a)(4) than under section 3-703 is constitutionally sound. View "People v. Sroga" on Justia Law

Smith was convicted of two counts of attempted first-degree murder; two counts of aggravated battery with a firearm; and one count each of home invasion, armed robbery, and aggravated battery of a child. Because the trial court failed to rule on his pro se post-conviction petition within 90 days, the petition automatically advanced to the second stage of proceedings. Assistant Public Defender Avant was appointed to represent Smith and filed a Rule 651(c) certificate. The Rule provides: “The record filed in that court shall contain a showing, which may be made by the certificate of petitioner’s attorney, that [(1)] the attorney has consulted with petitioner by phone, mail, electronic means or in-person to ascertain his or her contentions of deprivation of constitutional rights, [(2)] has examined the record of the proceedings at the trial, and [(3)] has made any amendments to the petitions filed pro se that are necessary for an adequate presentation of petitioner’s contentions.” Avant left the public defender’s office; Underwood was subsequently appointed and represented Smith at a hearing on the state's motion to dismiss.The trial court dismissed his petition. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Smith’s argument that Underwood’s representation did not comply with Rule 651(c). Underwood was not required to independently demonstrate compliance with Rule 651(c) when all that remained for her to do upon assuming the role of second-stage postconviction counsel was orally argue against the motion to dismiss. View "People v. Smith" on Justia Law

Williams was convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault and criminal sexual assault against his daughter and his stepdaughter. During rebuttal closing arguments the prosecutor, in response to the defense’s remarks about “uncorroborated” testimony, that the defense also had subpoena power. Williams was sentenced to life imprisonment.The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the judgment. While the defense has no burden to produce evidence, the statement was an accurate and reasonable response to defense counsel’s claim that the prosecution should have called certain witnesses. The comment was not substantially prejudicial. It was brief, constituting three lines in nearly 17 pages of the trial transcript. The prosecutor and the jury instructions subsequently reminded the jury that the state has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is not required to prove his innocence, and that closing arguments are not evidence. The prosecutor’s statement that hearsay is “something that’s said outside of court” and “[i]t’s a rule we can’t bring in hearsay” and that defense counsel was aware of that rule did not constitute a clear and obvious error. The evidence against the defendant was not closely balanced, so the comment was not prejudicial. View "People v. Williams" on Justia Law

Pursuant to the Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act, 725 ILCS 150/1, the state initiated forfeiture proceedings against currency totaling $223,743 that was seized from a van driven by Tyler, but owned by Salaam, following a traffic stop. The forfeiture complaint alleged that there was probable cause to believe that the currency was furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance. The state unsuccessfully attempted to serve Tyler with notice of the forfeiture proceedings by mail, before serving notice by publication. No one filed a claim to the currency. The circuit court entered a default judgment of forfeiture. More than two years later, Salaam moved to vacate, arguing that the judgment was void because he was not served with notice. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that it had in rem jurisdiction over the currency; that notice was properly given to the driver, as the “owner or interest holder” of the currency; and that Salaam was not entitled to notice because he was not an “owner or interest holder.” The appellate court affirmed,The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction of the case under the Forfeiture Act and had in rem jurisdiction over the seized currency, so any failure to comply with statutory notice rendered its judgment voidable, not void. Any challenge to that order had to be filed within two years of its entry. Salaam’s motion was not timely. View "Alvarez v. $59,914 United States Currency" on Justia Law

In 2004, Grant was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault and criminal sexual assault. The trial court merged the counts and sentenced him to 14 years in prison. In 2013, Grant sought forensic testing of a hair that was discovered during a post-assault examination of the victim. It was subsequently discovered that all the forensic evidence in Grant’s case was destroyed in 2007, pursuant to Peoria Police Department policy.Defense counsel moved for a new trial or for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, citing PPD’s failure to fulfill its duty to preserve the forensic evidence as required by 725 ILCS 5/116-4. The circuit court denied the motion. The appellate court vacated Grant’s conviction, remanded for further proceedings, and ordered a jury instruction at any retrial that the state failed to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence as required and that the jury may construe that fact against the state. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the judgment of the circuit court. Section 116-4 contains nothing to indicate that the legislature intended for the failure to comply with the statute to result in vacatur of a defendant’s conviction; the legislative intent is further confirmed by the criminal liability set forth for intentional non-compliance with section 116-4. View "People v. Grant" on Justia Law

Defendant fired a gun at four police officers and was convicted of armed robbery and four counts of aggravated discharge of a firearm. The appellate court reversed in part after finding no speedy trial or public trial violation and no reversible error on a jury instruction issue. The appellate court vacated three of the aggravated discharge convictions, finding that the state had effectively prosecuted the defendant based on his firing a single shot at four officers.The Illinois Supreme Court remanded, agreeing with the appellate court. As to the speedy trial claim, the defendant did not demand trial in the statutorily directed manner and is considered to have agreed to the first continuance. There was no abuse of discretion in granting the state’s first motion for continuance. Counsel was not ineffective on that issue. The erroneous and contradictory jury instructions, however, require reversal and retrial. On retrial, the unit of prosecution issue is likely to recur. Where the legislature can, but does not, define the unit of prosecution, the doctrine of lenity applies. The offense of aggravated discharge of a firearm does not clearly define the unit of prosecution, so a single discharge in the direction of multiple police officers can sustain only one conviction. View "People v. Hartfield" on Justia Law

Responding to a burglary at a Chicago bar in 2009, police found the bar owner in the parking lot with multiple injuries. The man died hours later. Salamon was convicted of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and burglary and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 33 years.The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. While an inculpatory statement Salamon made to police about two years after the burglary was involuntary and should have been suppressed, the admission of that statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court stated that a prolonged incommunicado detention disguised as “normal police procedure” cannot be condoned; an unwarranted delay in providing the simple expedient of a telephone call takes on significant importance in evaluating the voluntariness of an inculpatory statement made after an extended period of incommunicado detention. However, the substance of Salaman’s video-recorded confession was cumulative and duplicated other evidence that was properly admitted at trial, so the result of the trial would have been the same if the confession had been excluded. View "People v.Salamon" on Justia Law