Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A search warrant was served at a home belonging to Chambers’ mother. He was found inside, along with a large quantity of cocaine, cash, weapons, and ammunition. The Cook County circuit court denied his repeated requests for a Franks hearing. He was convicted of armed violence and unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and sentenced to consecutive terms of 25 and 45 years’ imprisonment. The appellate court held that the trial court should have conducted a Franks hearing and remanded for determination of whether the search warrant was properly issued, stating that the informant’s appearance and testimony before an issuing judge is “but one factor to consider in determining whether to grant a Franks hearing, but it does not categorically preclude the court from holding a Franks hearing.” The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. Chambers made a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement was intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly included in the warrant affidavit; it is irrelevant that the officer’s suspicions about the presence of guns and drugs at the address turned out to be well-founded. View "People v. Chambers" on Justia Law

Sanders was convicted of the 1992 first-degree murder and aggravated kidnapping of Cooks. Sanders was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 60 and 15 years. Bingham, May, and Barfield were convicted in separate trials. In 2010, Sanders filed a second successive postconviction petition, alleging actual innocence. Despite the absence of any motion for leave to file the successive petition, the circuit court allowed it and advanced it to the second stage of proceedings. The court then dismissed the petition. The appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, finding purported new evidence and a recantation “not so conclusive in character as would probably change the result on retrial.” View "People v. Sanders" on Justia Law

Williams pleaded guilty to unlawful delivery of a controlled substance in exchange for a sentencing cap of 25 years’ imprisonment. Defendant later moved to withdraw his plea, claiming he had been improperly admonished regarding the maximum sentence he faced. The court had stated, several times, that he faced a maximum sentence of 60 years’ imprisonment. In making the statement, the court applied 720 ILCS 570/408(a) which provides: “Any person convicted of a second or subsequent offense under this Act may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term up to twice the maximum term otherwise authorized.” Defendant had a prior felony conviction, and his enhanced Class X maximum sentence of 30 years on the unlawful delivery charge was doubled to 60. The court denied defendant’s motion; the appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that section 408(a) is ambiguous so that it was appropriate to invoke the rule of lenity. The court reasoned that it was unable to say with certainty that the legislature intended that section 408(a) would apply only to offenses committed in violation of the Act, as defendant argued, or whether, as the state claimed, it may apply to double defendant’s enhanced Class X maximum of 30 years to 60 years. View "People v. Williams" on Justia Law

In 2008 Gill was shot to death while sitting outside his Chicago home with Clark. The evidence of defendant’s guilt consisted solely of two eyewitness identifications. The first identification, made by the victim, was admitted into evidence under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. Before Gill died, Gill’s father (Johnson) asked Gill who had shot him. Both Clark and Johnson testified that Gill responded that “Lucky” had shot him. Multiple witnesses testified that defendant, who lived across the street from Gill, was known by the nickname “Lucky.” Gill’s mother testified that Gill and defendant had been friends for years, that defendant often spent time in Gill’s home, and that defendant recently had been fighting with a member of Gill’s family. From photographs and during an in-person show-up, Clark identified defendant as the shooter. Clark admitted she had seen defendant only “[l]ike once or twice” before the shooting, had not spoken to him, and did not know him. Clark apparently contradicted herself about whether defendant wore a hood. Defendant filed a motion in limine to allow an attorney/licensed psychologist, to testify as an expert on the topic of memory and eyewitness identification. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed denial of the motion, finding that the requested testimony was relevant and the error was not harmless. View "People v. Lerma" on Justia Law

Thompson, was convicted of violating the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act, (720 ILCS 646/25(a)(2), (d)(2), following a jury trial in which the circuit court admitted lay opinion identification testimony of four witnesses (Illinois Rule of Evidence 701), who identified Thompson as the person depicted in a surveillance videotape or still photographs that were taken from the crime scene. The appellate court reversed, stating that none of the witnesses aided the jurors’ own identification of who was depicted in the video and, therefore, the testimony encroached upon the function of the jury. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, noting that one witness merely laid the foundation for admission of the video and another had a perspective of the defendant that the jury did not have, so that there was some basis to conclude he was more likely to correctly identify the defendant. While admission of the testimony of the other two witnesses was in error, the error was harmless. Thompson acknowledged that he was the person on the video and the jury was repeatedly told by both attorneys and instructed by the court that it was up to the jury to make the ultimate determination of whether Thompson was the individual depicted on the video. View "People v. Thompson" on Justia Law

In separate trials, defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of vehicle titles and unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle. In each case, defendant moved for a new trial more than 30 days after the jury verdict, but less than 30 days after sentencing. The state did not object to timeliness. The court heard arguments, then denied the motions. The appellate court concluded that both appeals were untimely so that it did not have jurisdiction. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed, but, because of the unique facts, found defendant’s confusion regarding when to file his appeals was understandable. At the sentencing hearing, weeks after the 30-day deadline to move for new trial, counsel and the court discussed scheduling a time to file and hear a motion for new trial. Counsel also moved for jury information to be used in his motion for new trial. Neither the State’s Attorney nor the court challenged the timeliness of defendant’s motions; the state responded on the merits. Timeliness was not discussed until the state filed appellate court responses. Even then, the parties were preoccupied with the revestment doctrine, indicating additional confusion on the part of all parties regarding when to file a motion for new trial and subsequent notice of appeal. The court reinstated the appeal, citing the fundamental right to appeal a criminal conviction. View "People v. Salem" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in the deaths of Coleman, a 68-year-old man shot multiple times at his Chicago home in a botched robbery in 2005, and Stanley, defendant’s alleged coconspirator, gunned down in an alley the next day. Defendant’s statements in taped police interrogation were admitted as evidence against him at trial, after he sought suppression of those statements, arguing they were involuntary due to police questioning him off-camera and without Miranda rights, and due to physical coercion from handcuffs kept on him an excessively long time. The appellate court concluded the confession should have been suppressed, due to doubts it was voluntary, based on defendant’s age (then 19), educational level, sleep and food deprivation, prior substance abuse, deceptive conduct by police, length of interrogation, coercive atmosphere, lack of experience with the criminal justice system, and use of marijuana while in custody. The Illinois Supreme Court remanded. While defendant adequately preserved the broad issue of voluntariness of his confession, his arguments on appeal were almost entirely distinct from his arguments before the trial court. The drastic shift in factual theories deprived the state of the opportunity to present evidence. A court of review could not be confident in the adequacy of this record to address those arguments. View "People v. Hughes" on Justia Law

In 2011, defendant was convicted under the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute (AUUW) (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A)) and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. That statute was found to be unconstitutional in 2013 (Aguilar case). The appellate court affirmed defendant’s conviction, finding that, in Aguilar, the Illinois Supreme Court limited its finding of unconstitutionality to the “Class 4 form” of the offense and that the “Class 2 form,” applicable to felons, like defendant, was constitutional and enforceable. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. A “Class 2 form” of AUUW does not exist. There is only one offense of AUUW based on section 24-1.6(a)(1)(a)(3)(A) and a prior felony conviction is not an element of that offense. A prior felony conviction is a sentencing factor which elevates the offense from a Class 4 felony to a Class 2 felony. On its face, the provision constitutes a flat ban on carrying ready-to-use guns outside the home and amounts to a wholesale ban on the exercise of a personal right that is specifically guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, as construed by the Supreme Court. Because the prohibition is not limited to a particular subset of persons, such as felons, the statute, as written, is unconstitutional on its face. View "People v. Burns" on Justia Law

The state sought adjudication of wardship against Michael, charging him with misdemeanor theft. Count I alleged that he obtained control over property of another under circumstances that would have reasonably induced him to believe that it was stolen. Count 2 alleged that he committed theft by deception. Following Michael’s conviction on Count 2, the probation officer recommended that Michael be placed on supervision for one year. The state recommended a sentence of one year’s probation and restitution of $160. The court continued the case under supervision for one year, referred Michael for evaluation, and ordered him to pay $160 in restitution. The continuance was memorialized in a “Supervision Order” and a “Sentencing Order.” On the sentencing order, the judge checked the box for “No finding or judgment of guilty entered.” The court did not adjudge Michael a ward of the court, but advised Michael of his appeal rights, and appointed the State Appellate Defender to represent him. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. While a recent statutory change allows supervision orders to be entered in juvenile cases after a finding of guilt (705 ILCS 405/5-615(1)(b)), the change did not make such interlocutory orders appealable under any supreme court rule. View "In re Michael D." on Justia Law

In the summer of 2013, the State filed an information charging defendant Sandro Espinoza with domestic battery. The information stated that, “said defendant, knowingly, without legal justification made physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with a minor, a family or household member, in that said defendant struck the minor about the face, in violation of Chapter 720, Section 5/12-3.2(a)(2), of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, 2012.” At Espinoza’s bond hearing, the State indicated that the victim was defendant’s son, who sustained a bloody nose. The trial court granted the State’s request for a no contact order, admonishing defendant that, as a condition of his bond, he was to have no contact with the minor, D.E. At a subsequent pretrial hearing, defense counsel indicted that Espinoza wanted to plead guilty and accept the State’s plea offer. However, defense counsel also noted his concern that there were no identifiers in the complaint, and orally moved to amend the charging instrument. The trial court declined to consider the oral motion, and directed defense counsel to file a written motion. The trial court also declined to accept Espinoza’s guilty plea to a complaint that was defective on its face. At issue in this case was whether the charging instrument, which identified the victim simply as “a minor,” was sufficient pursuant to section 111-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963. In two separate criminal cases, the trial courts dismissed criminal complaints based upon the insufficiency of the charging instruments, where those charging instruments identified the victims only as “a minor.” The cases were consolidated on appeal. The appellate court, with one justice dissenting, affirmed. Finding no reason to disturb the appellate court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Illinois v. Espinoza" on Justia Law