Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2003, Domagala, a live-in caretaker, was seen repeatedly striking and pressing the throat of his 84-year-old charge, Stanley. Approximately a week after being taken to the emergency room, Stanley was discharged to a nursing home with a feeding tube in place. While in the nursing home, Stanley pulled out the tube several times causing peritonitis, a systemic infection, which ultimately led to his death. Domagala was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to 40 years. He filed a post-conviction petition, alleging that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to conduct a diligent investigation to discover that a superseding, intervening cause, i.e., gross negligence of treating medical staff, and not petitioner’s conduct, caused the death of the victim. The circuit court dismissed. The appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, finding that Domagala is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.View "People v. Domagala" on Justia Law

Lloyd was convicted of seven counts of criminal sexual assault under 720 ILCS 5/12-13(a)(2). The victim was 13 years old and had known Lloyd all of her life. The appellate court affirmed six of his convictions, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. The Illinois Supreme Court held that all seven convictions must be reversed. The state was required to prove that Lloyd committed an act of sexual penetration with the victim and that he knew either that she was unable to understand the nature of the act or that she was unable to give knowing consent. Lloyd’s knowledge of the victim’s age, alone, was insufficient to prove that he knew the victim was unable to understand the nature of the sex acts or give knowing consent. The court criticized the state’s decision not to charge aggravated criminal sexual abuse, for which the evidence was sufficient, stating that it is “more than unfortunate that the State chose to prosecute this case in a manner that required the minor victim … to answer questions as to her motivation or willingness to engage in sexual activity … and about her sexual education.” View "People v. Lloyd" on Justia Law

In 2006, defendant was indicted for aggravated battery and mob action. Multiple continuance motions were filed by defendant and the state. When the case was called for jury trial in May 2010, the victim-witnesses had not arrived. The judge began jury selection, over defense counsel’s objection, although the defendant had not arrived. When the witnesses had not arrived, more than 90 minutes later, the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant and entered a written order stating that the “matter is dismissed.” The appellate court held that that the order was an appealable dismissal of charges rather than a nonappealable acquittal, then reversed and remanded for trial. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. Normally jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn, but under these unique facts, the defendant was never at risk of conviction. The state indicated it would not participate prior to the jury being sworn. The court stated that it understood the court’s frustration regarding delays and its desire to control its docket, but “cannot countenance proceedings which the court labels as a ‘trial” but which simply prove to be ‘a sham [or] artifice employed by the trial judge to achieve the result of a dismissal with prejudice for want of prosecution.’”View "People v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Coleman was convicted for participation in a 1994 Peoria home invasion and was sentenced to consecutive terms of 30 years for armed robbery and aggravated criminal sexual assault. The appellate court affirmed; Coleman was unsuccessful in initial post-conviction claims. He claimed actual innocence in a 2009 successive post-conviction petition. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing at which Coleman called eight witnesses and the state called an investigating detective. The trial court denied relief, finding that Coleman’s evidence was insufficient to probably change the result on retrial. The Illinois Supreme Court ordered a new trial. To succeed on a post-conviction claim of actual innocence, a claimant must present new, material, noncumulative evidence that is so conclusive it would probably change the result on retrial. Although the state’s evidence at the original trial was sufficient to convict, there was no forensic evidence linking Coleman to the attack, and the prosecution’s identifications were significantly impeached. At the post-conviction hearing, Coleman presented the testimony of five men who admitted that they were present at the crime scene and that he was not. Although their credibility could be challenged based on their voluntary intoxication and criminal records, their testimony was consistent on key details. The evidence was new, material and noncumulative. On retrial, the fact finder can determine the credibility of those witnesses and balance the conflicting accounts. View "People v. Coleman" on Justia Law

In 2001, a vehicle was fired at eight times by another expressway motorist on the expressway. The driver positively identified the defendant as the shooter several times, and the passenger, seriously injured, also, identified the defendant from a photo array. Convicted, the defendant was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment for the attempted murder of the passenger and to a consecutive 10-year term for shooting at the driver. He later claimed that he would have accepted a plea bargain rather than go to trial if he had known he could receive consecutive sentences, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court reversed, but the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, finding that the defendant failed to show he was prejudiced. The record showed that the defendant had hoped to prove he was actually innocent and wanted to go to trial. The trial court reasonably found the defendant’s statements to the contrary incredible. The defendant had called a witness to testify that her boyfriend was the shooter, contrary to a signed statement she had given after the incident. The victim testified that he had been offered money to recant. View "People v. Hale" on Justia Law

Fitzpatrick was stopped by a Zion police officer for walking down the middle of a street, a petty offense which violates the Illinois Vehicle Code and was also contrary to municipal ordinance. After a brief pat-down search, Fitzpatrick was placed under arrest and, at the police station, was searched for contraband. Cocaine was found in his sock. Fitzpatrick was charged with possessing fewer than 15 grams of cocaine. He moved to suppress the evidence on a theory that a full custodial arrest for a petty offense violates the search and seizure clause of the Illinois Constitution. The motion was denied and the appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, noting that the issue has been settled under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Fitzpatrick failed to meet his burden of establishing his claim that there is any long-standing Illinois tradition prohibiting arrests for petty offenses. The same meaning should be given to article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution as has been given to the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution.View "People v. Fitzpatrick" on Justia Law

Hunter was arrested in 2008 when Chicago police observed him standing in the doorway of a building. A codefendant, on the sidewalk, twice accepted money from a passerby and then nodded to Hunter, who retrieved an item from the vestibule and handed it to the passerby. Police recovered cannabis and handguns from the vestibule. Hunter was charged with possession of cannabis. Bail was set, he was released, and he filed a written demand for trial. Continuances were granted; 175 days after the speedy-trial demand, Hunter was indicted as an armed habitual criminal and on four counts of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. Hunter claimed that the gun-related offenses were known when he was originally charged, were subject to the compulsory joinder statute, and should have been combined with the cannabis charge. He claimed that the speedy-trial statute was violated since he had not been brought to trial on the new charges within 160 days of his original trial demand. The trial court dismissed the new charges. The appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed, holding that the compulsory joinder statute requires that offenses based on the same act and known of by the prosecution must be prosecuted together and are subject to the speedy-trial period of the original charge. The original drug charge remains undisturbed.View "People v. Hunter" on Justia Law

In 2003, a stampede at a Chicago nightclub killed 21 people and injured 50 others. Security guards had released pepper spray to break up a fight on the dance floor, and a rush to the exit crushed these victims. The operators of a restaurant and bar in the building were acquitted on charges of involuntary manslaughter. They were held in indirect criminal contempt for willful violation of court orders concerning building code violations, and received two-year prison sentences. Those orders prohibited occupancy of a suspended mezzanine and occupancy of the second floor of the building. The appellate court ruled that the original orders were not clear and reversed the finding of indirect criminal contempt in 2011. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and remanded for consideration of other issues, holding that the jury could have found the defendants guilty as charged beyond a reasonable doubtView "People v. Le Mirage, Inc." on Justia Law

Johnson was convicted of first degree murder, armed robbery, aggravated vehicular hijacking, aggravated kidnapping and concealment of a homicidal death. He was sentenced to terms of natural life plus 70 years. The appellate court affirmed Johnson’s convictions and sentences and dismissal of his subsequent post-conviction petition,(725 ILCS 5/122-1. Johnson filed a section 2-1401 petition for relief from judgment in 2008, which the circuit court erroneously dismissed. The appellate court remanded. The state filed a motion to dismiss his amended petition and requested that Johnson be assessed filing fees and court costs as an inmate filing a frivolous petition, 735 ILCS 5/22-105(a). The trial court dismissed and assessed numerous fees and costs against Johnson, including a $50 fee under the Counties Code, which provides that a State’s Attorney may collect a $50 fee for each day actually employed in the hearing of a case of habeas corpus. The prosecution argued that the habeas corpus fee applies to all collateral proceedings. The appellate court held that the reference to habeas corpus was generic and applied to all collateral proceedings, in order to deter frivolous filings. The Illinois Supreme Court vacated the fee, stating that, although there are several different types of habeas corpus proceedings, the Counties Code provision applies only to those and is not generic. View "People v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A 14-year-old was the subject of a petition to have her adjudicated delinquent based on unlawful consumption of alcohol and other offenses. She pled guilty to the misdemeanor of unlawful consumption of alcohol in exchange for the dismissal of the other charges and was sentenced to 18 months of probation. Later that year, the state filed a petition to revoke her probation, claiming that drug testing revealed that she had consumed marijuana and cocaine. She was conveyed to a Department of Juvenile Justices facility. Her sentence has been served. Addressing the issue under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the statute does not permit a minor to be committed to the Department after being adjudicated delinquent for unlawful consumption of alcohol, being placed on probation with conditions, and then having that probation revoked for violation of those probation conditions. Sentencing for underage drinking is limited by a Juvenile Court Act provision stating that a minor may be committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice “only if a term of incarceration is permitted by law for adults found guilty of the offense for which the minor was adjudicated delinquent.” Underage drinking is not an offense of which an adult may be guilty. The court rejected a claim that this juvenile could be incarcerated for having “violated a court order” by noncompliance with probation terms. View "In re Shelby R." on Justia Law