Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Pacheco was convicted of aggravated assault and other offenses after he tried to hit a Joliet police officer with his car. During the incident, the officer shot and injured Pacheco. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court violated Pacheco’s right to confrontation by prohibiting defense counsel from cross-examining the officer who shot Pacheco as to whether the officer believed he could lose his job if the shooting was found to be unjustified and finding the trial court erred in granting the prosecution’s motion in limine to bar defense counsel from asking the officer and his partner why they did not write police reports regarding the incident.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and remanded. The limitation imposed on the officer’s cross-examination was necessary to avoid a highly prejudicial outcome to Pacheco–the admission of testimony that a review panel had found the shooting to be justified. Cross-examination was not otherwise limited. Because of department policy, the officers had no choice about writing reports and their failure to do so was irrelevant to any question of bias or credibility. The question would have distracted the jury from the question of determining the guilt or innocence of Pacheco. View "People v. Pacheco" on Justia Law

Chicago police arrested Lozano, who was subsequently charged with burglary and possession of burglary tools. Lozano moved to suppress evidence (a car radio, a wallet, and two screwdrivers) arguing that when the officers stopped, detained, and searched him, they neither possessed a warrant nor saw him committing any crimes and could not reasonably suspect that he had committed or was about to commit any crimes or that he was armed and dangerous. Officer Rodriguez testified that he and his partner were driving in an unmarked car, on patrol, and saw Lozano “running at a fast rate of speed” and holding his front pocket. It was raining and wet outside. Rodriguez made a U-turn and approached Lozano, who fled up the stairs of an apparently abandoned building. Rodriguez pursued Lozano and saw a “big bulge” in Lozano’s pocket. Rodriguez handcuffed Lozano, then touched his hooded sweatshirt and felt a rectangular box. He reached inside Lozano’s front pocket and recovered a wallet, two screwdrivers, and a radio. The wallet and radio had been taken from a parked car.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial and appellate courts and held that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Lozano. The act of running in the rain while holding the front of his pocket did not provide a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify an investigatory stop consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the Illinois Constitution. View "People v. Lozano" on Justia Law

Washington and Hood were arrested in 1993; they were charged with armed robbery and murder. Washington, 19 years old, had no criminal record. He claims Chicago police detectives, subordinates of infamous Chicago detective Jon Burge, handcuffed him to a chair, interrogated him, beat him, kicked over his chair while he remained handcuffed to it, and subjected him to psychological abuse. After being detained for more than a day and a half, Washington signed a prewritten statement, falsely confessing to the murder. After Washington’s mistrial, Hood was convicted and sentenced to a 75-year term. Washington then accepted a 25-year sentence in exchange for a guilty plea.After a 2014 investigative article in The New Yorker about witness coercion, then-Governor Quinn commuted Hood’s sentence. In 2015, the state, on its own motion, moved to vacate both convictions, then nol-prossed the charges against both. Each filed a verified petition for certificates of innocence under 735 ILCS 5/2-702.After a hearing, at which there was evidence of police abuse of the defendants in these and other cases and coercion of the witnesses, the Cook County circuit court denied Washington’s petition; the appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. The statute does not impose a categorical bar precluding petitioners who pleaded guilty. This petitioner did not “voluntarily” cause his conviction by pleading guilty. View "People v. Washington" on Justia Law

The Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Pretrial Practices made multiple recommendations to “ensure defendants are not denied liberty solely due to their inability to financially secure their release from custody.” In 2021, the General Assembly passed, and the Governor signed, the Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Equity-Today (SAFE-T) Act, revising the standards for police use of force, conferring new authority on the Attorney General concerning alleged civil rights violations by law enforcement, and imposing new requirements for correctional facilities.The Act rebuilt Illinois’s statutory framework for the pretrial release of criminal defendants, 725 ILCS 5/110, establishing a default rule that all persons charged with an offense are eligible for pretrial release on personal recognizance subject to conditions of release, such as electronic monitoring or home supervision. Although the Act eliminates monetary bail it allows the court to order pretrial detention of criminal defendants in specified cases. The prosecution bears the burden of establishing a defendant’s eligibility for pretrial detention. The trial court rejected claims that the Act violated the state’s constitutional single-subject and three-readings requirements and was void for vagueness but entered summary judgment, finding that certain provisions violated the bail, crime victims’ rights, and the separation of powers clauses of the Illinois Constitution.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. The Illinois Constitution does not mandate monetary bail as the only means to ensure criminal defendants appear for trials or the only means to protect the public. The Act’s pretrial release provisions set forth procedures commensurate with the balance between the individual rights of defendants and the individual rights of crime victims. The legislature has long regulated the bail system. View "Rowe v. Raoul" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court dismissing Petitioner's appeal from the denial of his motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, holding that the notice of appeal filed by Petitioner was untimely.Petitioner was found guilty of first degree murder and other crimes and sentenced to seventy years' imprisonment for murder. Petitioner later filed the pro se motion for leave to file the successive postconviction petition at issue on appeal, arguing that his sentence was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant filed a notice of appeal in the circuit court that was file-stamped on September 10, 2020, but the envelope containing the notice of appeal had a postage meter stamp dated September 1, 2020. The appellate court concluded that the postage meter stamp was insufficient to prove that Petitioner mailed his notice of appeal before the deadline. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sole means of establishing the "time of mailing" under Rule 373 in the case of a pro se incarcerated litigant is by certification as described in Ind. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). View "People v. English" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court reversing the decision of the circuit court finding that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination prevented the State from compelling Defendant to provide the passcode for his cell phone, holding that the foregone conclusion doctrine applied as an exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege in this case.Defendant was charged with two counts of forgery stemming from the discovery of two false paychecks made payable to him. The police applied for and obtained a warrant to search Defendant's cell phone but could not execute the warrant because the phone was passcode protected. The State then filed a motion to compel production of the passcode. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that compelling Defendant to provide the passcode would constitute compelling incriminating testimonial communication and that the foregone conclusion did not apply as an exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege. The appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the foregone conclusion applied in this case. View "People v. Sneed" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the appellate court reversing the judgment of the circuit court granting the State's motion to dismiss Petitioner's appeal of the second-stage dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief brought under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, holding the appellate court erred in part.Petitioner was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to forty-eight years of imprisonment. Petitioner later filed a pro se postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court advanced the petition to second-stage rulings under the Act and then granted the State's motion to dismiss. In reversing and remanding for further proceedings, the appellate court concluded that Petitioner did not receive effective assistance of retained postconviction counsel at the hearing on the State's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the appellate court's judgment reversing the circuit court's judgment of dismissal, holding that postconviction petitioners have a right to reasonable assistance of counsel under the Act; and (2) reversed the appellate court's judgment directing the circuit court to appoint new counsel, holding that the circuit court can only make one statutory appointment. View "People v. Urzua" on Justia Law

Pinkett was charged with aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer after he failed to stop his motorcycle in response to police sirens and lights and traveled more than 21 miles per hour over the speed limit. Pinkett was ultimately arrested inside a Walmart. In opening statements, the prosecutor said that officers would testify that at Walmart Pinkett did not ask why he was being detained. Defense counsel unsuccessfully moved for a mistrial. At trial, the issue was whether Pinkett was aware of the officers attempting to stop him; there was testimony about noise levels, Pinkett's earplugs, and the lack of a rear-view mirror on his motorcycle. The arresting officer testified that he told Pinkett, ‘We need to walk out the store without making a scene,’ and he did it with no problem.” In closing arguments, the prosecutor said: “[Pinkett] doesn’t ask why he’s being detained. ... [Pinkett] has the right to remain silent … Don’t you think a normal person would say what’s this all about.”The appellate court reversed Pinkett's conviction, finding that the circuit court erred in denying Pinkett’s motion for a mistrial because evidence of Pinkett’s silence during and after his arrest was only admissible for impeachment purposes whether the silence was before or after Miranda warnings. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was not so overwhelming that the error was harmless. View "People v. Pinkett" on Justia Law

Illinois State Trooper Scott stopped Taylor on I-80 due to an obstructed windshield. Scott approached Taylor’s vehicle, identified himself, and informed Taylor that he would give him a warning. While Scott was preparing the warning, another officer arrived with a canine unit and walked the canine around Taylor’s vehicle. The canine alerted. Scott and the other officer asked Taylor to exit his car. Taylor refused and sped off, ultimately parking his vehicle on a country road and grabbing weapons that he had in his vehicle, an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle, and a handgun. Taylor hid in a cornfield. Scott found Taylor’s car and exited his squad car. Taylor fired 23 shots in Scott’s direction with the AR-15 rifle. Scott was unharmed. Law enforcement officers pursued Taylor, who surrendered several hours later.Convicted of attempted first-degree murder of a peace officer, Taylor was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment, plus an additional 20 years for using a firearm during the commission of the offense. The Appellate Court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for a second psychiatric evaluation to determine whether he was not guilty by reason of insanity. Taylor was not subject to an improper double enhancement when he received a 20-year sentence under the firearm enhancement of section 8-4(c)(1)(C), in addition to his 30-year sentence under subsection (A). View "People v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Police executed a search warrant at a Chicago home, forcibly entering the residence after nobody answered. Inside, officers saw Ramirez descending from the second floor. Ramirez was detained but allowed to return upstairs, where he retrieved his shoes from one of the bedrooms. Police searched the house and recovered a 20-gauge Benelli shotgun, a Mossberg shotgun, a 9-millimeter handgun, and ammunition. The Benelli shotgun was recovered from under the mattress of the single bed in the room where Ramirez had retrieved his shoes. From the same bedroom, police recovered mail bearing Ramirez’s name and the home's address. Ramirez was taken into custody, provided Miranda warnings, and made a statement that he bought the Benelli shotgun from a coworker for $100.Ramirez was charged with possession of a Benelli shotgun whose serial number had been “changed, altered, removed or obliterated” (720 ILCS 5/24-5(b)). The state did not present any direct evidence that Ramirez knew that the shotgun’s serial number was defaced. Ramirez did not testify or call any witnesses. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed his conviction. Section 24-5(b)’s implied mens rea of knowledge must apply to both elements of the offense, possession and defacement. The court remanded for a new trial. At the time of trial, binding precedent from an appellate court provided that the state did not have to present evidence that a defendant knew a firearm was defaced. View "People v. Ramirez" on Justia Law