Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2016, Cooke filed a complaint against the Committee for Frank J. Mautino with the Illinois State Board of Elections, alleging that the Committee had filed inadequate expenditure reports, Elections Code, 10 ILCS 5/9-7, and made expenditures that did not comply with section 9-8.10. The Board held that the Committee willfully violated its order to amend its expenditure reports and imposed a $5000 fine. Cooke appealed because the Board did not reach the merits of his complaint. On remand, the Board deadlocked on both issues and found that Cooke had not met his burden in establishing violations of either section. The appellate court reversed the Board’s findings that Cooke had not met his burden in establishing violations.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed in part. Section 9-8.10(a)(9) does not permit committees to make expenditures for gas and repairs to vehicles that are not owned or leased by the committee. For such vehicles, a committee may only make expenditures for actual mileage reimbursement. Because the Committee made expenditures for gas and repairs for vehicles it neither owned nor leased, the Committee violated section 9- 8.10(a)(9). Section 9-8.10(a)(2) regulates only the amount or price of expenditures. Cooke did not demonstrate that the Committee violated that section. View "Cooke v. Illinois State Board of Elections" on Justia Law

In December 2020, Jackson and Pope each filed a statement as an independent candidate for village president. Jackson's petition had 50 voter signatures. Pope's had 32 signatures. An objection alleged that the number of signatures was insufficient under 10 ILCS 5/10-3. At an Electoral Board hearing, Schmidt, the Glendale Heights clerk and election official, testified that the Du Page County Clerk’s Office sent an e-mail indicating that “due to COVID, we are reducing the points of contact, here is a list of forms.” Schmidt stated that she read the State Board of Elections 2021 Candidate’s Guide, and, relying on the numbers “for non-partisan” elections, concluded that 24 signatures were required. Schmidt admitted that she did not understand the distinction between independent and nonpartisan. She acknowledged that she was never notified that the statutorily required number of signatures had been reduced because of the pandemic. Both candidates testified that they relied on Schmidt's representations.The Board overruled the objection, finding that both candidates justifiably relied on Schmidt’s statements and excusing their statutory violations. The trial and appellate courts affirmed.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, noting that the lowest possible correctly calculated number of signatures would be 118. While ballot access is a substantial right, the best safeguard of that right is fidelity to the Election Code and not unrestrained discretion by a local election official inexplicably confused about the statutory distinction between partisan and nonpartisan elections. A precise mathematical formula, clear and certain in its application, prevents impermissible political bias. View "Corbin v. Schroeder" on Justia Law

Elam, seeking election to the office of Riverdale village trustee at the consolidated general election occurring on April 6, 2021, filed nomination papers to be included on the ballot as an independent candidate on December 21, 2020. Attached to Elam’s nomination papers were 26 pages of signatures collected and certified by multiple petition circulators. Days later, objectors challenged Elam’s nomination papers, arguing that three individuals who circulated Elam’s nomination papers for signatures as an independent candidate in the 2021 consolidated general election violated statutory law by previously circulating nomination papers on behalf of a Democratic candidate in the 2021 consolidated primary election.The Municipal Officers Electoral Board for the Village of Riverdale determined that Election Code section 10-4, 10 ILCS 5/10-4 prohibits such a circumstance of “dual-circulation." The circuit court, appellate court, and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The policy reasons for the “dual-circulator” prohibition are evident in situations where a circulator solicits signatures for a party candidate in the primary (independent candidates do not appear on the primary ballot) and an independent candidate in the general election, both of whom will challenge one another for the same office in the general election. Section 10-4 prohibits situations such as this, which would undoubtedly cause voter confusion. View "Elam v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board for the Village of Riverdale" on Justia Law

In 2012, Wendy was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and arranged for her boyfriend, Mirenda, to care for her six-year-old daughter, Br. Br. came to the attention of DCFS in 2013 based on pending allegations that Mirenda sexually abused a previous partner’s daughters. The court conducted a hearing. Wendy and Assistant State’s Attorney Filipiak were present. Assistant Public Defender Bembnister was appointed as counsel for Wendy, and Assistant Public Defender Drell was appointed as guardian ad litem (GAL) for Br. Proceedings concerning Br. continued for several years.At a 2018 status hearing, Wendy appeared with a new, privately retained attorney, Drell. Drell’s appearance as Br.’s GAL at three hearings on the 2013 neglect petition before the same judge was not mentioned. In 2019, Drell withdrew and the public defender represented Wendy. The trial court terminated Wendy’s parental rights. The appellate court reversed, holding that a per se conflict existed because Drell served as Br.’s GAL before she served as Wendy’s attorney. Wendy had not raised the conflict-of-interest issue.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. A “ ‘realistic appraisal’ ” of Drell’s professional relationship with Br. indicates that Drell was not associated with the victim for purposes of the per se conflict rule when she acted as Br.’s GAL. An allegedly neglected minor is not a victim but “the subject of the proceeding” under the Juvenile Court Act; such proceedings are not adversarial. Drell was never associated with the prosecution. Drell acted at the behest of the court, not the state. View "In re Br. M. & Bo. M." on Justia Law

Palmer’s conviction for first-degree murder based on a 1998 Decatur killing was vacated in 2016, based on DNA evidence. He sought a certificate of innocence under 735 ILCS 5/2-702. The state argued that the new forensic evidence did not establish Palmer’s innocence by a preponderance of the evidence: the new evidence established he was not the primary assailant who killed the victim but did “nothing to refute the argument that petitioner may be guilty of the victim’s murder as an accessory or as a participant in a felony murder.” The circuit court rejected Palmer’s contention that the state was limited to arguing that he was guilty of first-degree murder as charged at trial. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Palmer had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was neither the principal nor an accomplice to the charged offense because “[t]he principal and the accomplice are, in the eyes of the law, one and the same,” rejecting Due Process and judicial estoppel arguments.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. A petitioner seeking a certificate of innocence needs to prove that he was innocent of the offense only as it was originally charged, not that he was innocent of every conceivable theory of criminal liability for that offense. View "People v. Palmer" on Justia Law

In 2007, Johnson agreed to plead guilty to unlawful restraint. The court informed him that unlawful restraint is a Class 4 felony, punishable by one to three years’ imprisonment, and stated that he would be subject to mandatory supervised release. Johnson entered his plea. The factual basis for the plea indicated that Johnson and another threatened the victim with a gun, detained him, and rummaged through his pockets but did not specify the victim’s age. The court did not inform Johnson that a conviction of unlawful restraint committed against a victim under the age of 18 would trigger a requirement to register under the Child Murderer and Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act, 730 ILCS 154/1. The court accepted the plea and imposed a two-year sentence. In 2016, Johnson sought leave to file a late post-conviction petition. He had discharged his sentence for unlawful restraint but was in prison for failing to register under the Act.The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the summary dismissal of the petition as patently without merit. Johnson lacked standing to seek postconviction relief from the unlawful restraint conviction because he was no longer “imprisoned in the penitentiary” for that offense. Under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, if a petitioner clearly lacks standing, the petition is necessarily patently without merit. Where there is no dispute that a petitioner’s liberty is not actually restrained due to the conviction, no further inquiry into his standing is necessary. The obligation to register under the Violent Offender Act was a collateral consequence of the unlawful restraint conviction and did not confer standing to challenge that conviction. View "People v. Johnson" on Justia Law

During a routine traffic stop, officers ran a name check on Bass, a passenger, which returned an investigative alert issued by the Chicago Police Department for an alleged sexual assault. Bass was arrested and made incriminating statements to investigators. The court denied a motion to suppress those statements and found him guilty of criminal sexual assault. The appellate court reversed, holding that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment because it was unlawfully prolonged, that Illinois Constitution article I, section 6, provides greater protections than the Fourth Amendment, and that arrests based on investigative alerts, even those supported by probable cause, violate the Illinois Constitution.The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of Bass’s conviction, relying solely on the Fourth Amendment, without addressing investigatory alerts or the state constitution. The state failed to meet its burden of showing that the stop was not unlawfully prolonged. Officers cannot lawfully pursue unrelated investigations after quickly completing the mission by claiming that the overall duration of the stop (here, about eight minutes) remained reasonable, nor by waiting to resolve the mission (by writing a ticket or giving a verbal warning) until unrelated inquiries are completed. The name check was unrelated to resolving the red light violation; the officers resolved the traffic violation and then waited to issue the verbal warning so that they could engage in on-scene investigations into other crimes by checking names until they found something worth investigating. View "People v. Bass" on Justia Law

An officer stopped a van, driven by Wise, for speeding. There was a passenger in the front seat and another in the “very back” seat. As the officer spoke with Wise, he detected the odor of burnt cannabis and called for backup. Two officers conducted a probable cause search of the vehicle; one found a firearm and ammunition “in the rear passenger compartment [in] kind of like [a] little cupholder armrest, inside a glove.” The gun was not in plain view. Searching Wise’s handbag, the officer found a large number of prescription pills. Wise, who had a 1995 Iowa conviction for first-degree burglary, was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) and unlawful possession of a substance containing oxycodone, 720 ILCS 570/402(c). An officer testified that Wise had told the officer that his brother owned the van, that he knew the gun was present, and that the gun belonged to a friend who also borrowed the van from Wise’s brother. Both passengers stated that the gun did not belong to Wise. The officer estimated that the gun was five to 10 feet away from Wise while he was driving.The Illinois Supreme Court vacated Wise's conviction. The state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wise exercised immediate and exclusive control over the area where the firearm was found; his conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon under section 24-1.1(a) on a theory of constructive possession cannot stand. View "People v. Wise" on Justia Law

Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism’s “Innocence Project” sought to exonerate Porter for two 1982 murders. Ciolino, a private investigator working with the Project, obtained a videotaped confession from Simon. Porter’s conviction was vacated. Simon pleaded guilty to the murders and was sentenced to 37 years in prison. Porter’s exoneration is regarded as the impetus for the Illinois death penalty moratorium. The tactics Ciolino used to obtain Simon’s confession came under scrutiny. It was alleged that Ciolino promised Simon that he would secure an attorney, Rimland, to represent him. Rimland shared office space with Ciolino and did not challenge Simon’s confession or present other evidence to the court. Ekl began representing Simon and filed a successive post-conviction petition asserting actual innocence. Two witnesses recanted their statements, indicating that those statements were induced by promises made by the Project. The circuit court vacated Simon’s convictions after Simon had served 15 years in prison. In 2015, Crawford published a book, Justice Perverted: How the Innocence Project … Sent an Innocent Man to Prison, which inspired the documentary at issue—Murder in the Park, in which Ekl allegedly made defamatory statements concerning Ciolino. Ciolino’s suit, alleging defamation, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy, was dismissed as barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Except as against one defendant, the appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the reinstatement of the claims against Ekl. Because the screenings of the documentary each constituted a separate publication of the allegedly defamatory material, the single-publication rule does not apply. Following the documentary's Chicago screening, Ciolino timely filed his complaint. View "Ciolino v. Simon" on Justia Law

Burge, a certified nursing assistant (CNA) formerly employed as a home health care provider, pled guilty to theft, a Class A misdemeanor after stealing $280 from a client. Days later, Burge moved to withdraw her guilty plea and vacate the judgment, claiming that her plea was not voluntarily entered. The circuit court of Champaign County denied her motion. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Burge’s motion. No manifest injustice occurred because she pled guilty under the misapprehension that she would not automatically lose her employment as a direct result of pleading guilty. Code of Criminal Procedure, 725 ILCS 5/113-4(c), which provides that “[i]f the defendant pleads guilty such plea shall not be accepted until the court shall have fully explained to the defendant” the various collateral consequences of pleading guilty does not apply when a defendant pleads guilty other than at arraignment. The legislature determined that only at arraignment, prior to the appointment of counsel, must a trial court admonish a defendant of the collateral consequences of pleading guilty; here, the defendant pled guilty after arraignment with defense counsel appointed and was properly admonished under Rule 402. View "People v. Burge" on Justia Law