Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A deputy observed a woman, whose license he believed was suspended, driving, and followed her home. After confirming that her license was suspended, he attempted to effect a traffic stop, but she went inside her home. Her husband emerged and gave false information, but invited the officer to search the house. A citation for driving on a suspended license was served on wife several weeks later. Both husband and wife were convicted of obstructing a peace officer. The appellate court held that providing false information, alone, was not sufficient for a conviction. The supreme court affirmed. The offense of obstructing a peace officer does not require a physical act, but may consist of knowingly providing a false statement which interposes an obstacle that impedes or hinders the officer and is relevant to the performance of his authorized duties. In this case there was no evidence that the husband's false statements hampered or impeded the officer in any way. View "People v. Baskerville" on Justia Law

In 1991, at age 16 years, defendant pled guilty to first degree murder in exchange for a recommendation of a 50-year sentence. He knew that the maximum was 60 years. He had previously been adjudicated delinquent and sentenced as a juvenile. The court imposed a 50-year term, without any admonition that the term would be followed by a mandatory three-year period of supervised release (MSR). Defendant's first attempt at postconviction relief was unsuccessful. Several years later, he filed another petition, claiming that his plea had not been knowing and voluntary because he was not informed of MSR. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's rejection of the petition and reduced the sentence to 47 years with three years of MSR. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, holding that defendant had not been "impeded" from raising a claim about failure to advise on MSR. Lack of precedent for a position differs from "cause" for failure to raise an issue, which is a statutory prerequisite to a successive post-conviction petition. In general, a defendant must raise an issue, even when the law is against him, in order to preserve it for review.View "People v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with armed robbery, aggravated kidnapping and aggravated vehicular hijacking "while armed with a dangerous weapon, to wit: a firearm," 720 ILCS 5/18-2(a); 18-4(a); 10-2-A. Although the crimes were committed in 2004, the indictment used versions of the statutes from before a 2000 amendment because sentencing enhancements in the amended versions had been declared unconstitutional. By the time of trial in 2006, enhanced sentencing provisions in the amended statutes were back in effect, but prosecution proceeded under the indictment. Defendant raised no objection. The jury found defendant guilty on all counts. The appellate court found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon because no weapon was recovered or introduced into evidence and because no testimony was provided as to size, weight, or metallic nature of the weapon. The court remanded with instructions that judgment be entered on lesser-included offenses of kidnapping, vehicular hijacking, and robbery. The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the trial court conviction. There was sufficient evidence to allow a jury to conclude that defendant had a firearm. Defendant was adequately apprised of the charges. View "People v. Washington" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a citizens' organization, filed suit alleging violations of the Surface Coal Mining Land Conservation and Reclamation Act, 225 ILCS 720/8.05(a), and the Water Use Act, 525 ILCS 45/1 resulting from a coal mine reclamation. The circuit court dismissed with prejudice. The appellate court reversed the dismissal as to all five counts directed against the mining company and modified the order dismissing the count against Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to be a dismissal without prejudice. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed in part. The trial court properly dismissed counts I through V because those counts constitute a challenge to the provisions of the revised permits authorized by Illinois Department of Natural Resources and could not be brought under the Mining Act. Similarly, there is no statutory basis to conclude that the Water Use Act allows a private right of action to challenge conduct that is specifically mandated by the terms of a permit authorized by IDNR.View "Citizens Opposing Pollution v. Exxonmobil Coal U.S.A." on Justia Law

Defendant, a school district, leased portable classrooms from plaintiff under contracts including penalties for early cancellation or default. Under the Downstate School Finance Authority for Elementary Districts Law (105 ILCS 5/1F-1) the state later created the Authority to manage the District's finances. The Authority canceled the leases before expiration, but did not authorize payment of the cancellation fees. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding it was legally impossible for the District to pay the cancellation fees, but also finding that the Authority had to comply with the cancellation terms of the leasing contracts. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of the District on the cancellation fees and vacated as moot the declaratory judgment in favor of plaintiff. The Illinois Supreme Court concluded that the legislature intended the Act to permit the Authority to cancel a school district's contract with a third party, but that cancellation must be consistent with the contractual terms agreed to by the school district and the third party. The Authority can cancel the leasing contracts, but must pay the contractual fees for early cancellation. View "Innovative Modular Solutions v. Hazel Crest Sch. Dist. 152.5" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contended that the trial court violated his right to confront witnesses against him when it permitted the state to introduce into evidence the preliminary hearing testimony of its key and unavailable witness. The defendant also argued that he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to file a motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds. The appellate court rejected the claim of ineffective assistance, but reversed and remanded, finding that preliminary hearing testimony was improperly admitted and the error could not be considered harmless. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. At the preliminary hearing, defense counsel was not aware of inconsistent statements the witness had given or his status as an alien or his pending deportation. Viewing cross-examination in its totality, counsel was not afforded adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness.View "People v. Torres" on Justia Law

In 2007, defendant filed a petition seeking leave to file a second successive post-conviction petition challenging his 1983 convictions for rape and deviate sexual assault. He alleged that newly discovered evidence substantiated his prior claim that his confession was the product of police brutality and torture. The trial court denied the petition. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a third-stage evidentiary hearing, holding that defendant had satisfied the cause-and-prejudice test for successive post-conviction petitions. The Illinois Supreme court affirmed the appellate court, but remanded to the trial court for appointment of post-conviction counsel and second-stage post-conviction proceedings. Evidence of coercion is not rendered irrelevant simply because the defendant has denied confessing and use of a physically coerced confession as substantive evidence of guilt is never harmless error. View "People v. Wrice" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty in 2007 to predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and received a 20-year sentence. He challenged fines and fees imposed, including a $250 public defender fee. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 725 ILCS 5/113-3.1(a), requires notice to the defendant and a hearing on ability to pay before the public defender fee may be imposed. The procedure was not followed; the appellate court vacated and remanded for notice and a hearing concerning ability to pay. The Supreme Court held that the fee should have been vacated outright, without any remand, because no motion to impose the fee had been made by the prosecution and it had not been sought by the circuit court itself. The circuit court clerk had imposed the fee unilaterally, without any authority for doing so. View "People v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Defendant was living with the mother of a developmentally disabled 17-year-old. He sexually assaulted her, but she did not immediately report it. He was convicted and received a 28-year sentence. On appeal, defendant complained that venirepersons were asked about why a victim might delay making a report. The appellate court found that the prosecutor had crossed the boundary of acceptable voir dire, but refused to excuse procedural default under the plain-error rule and affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed. The defendant also challenged failure to mention mandatory supervised release in the sentencing judgment, after which the Department of Corrections calculated the sentence to include an indeterminate MSR term of three years to natural life. The appellate court remanded under 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(d), which states that for criminal sexual assault, "the term of mandatory supervised release shall range from a minimum of 3 years to a maximum of natural life of the defendant." The Supreme Court reversed. Indeterminate sentences have generally been abolished in Illinois, but, in 2005, were resurrected for certain specified sex offenses to create lifetime supervision for high-risk offenders because of the risk of recidivism. The new provisions contemplate indeterminate terms. View "People v. Rinehart" on Justia Law

After a minor accident, the drivers' friends and relatives gathered, arguments ensued, and shots were fired. One victim survived; another died. Recovered bullets came from the same gun. There was testimony about defendant's use of a gun. Although an instruction on justifiable use of force in self-defense was given, defendant was convicted of first degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm. He appealed the refusal to give an instruction that would have found him guilty only of second degree murder for having had an unreasonable subjective belief that the use of force was necessary. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed. Evidence that supports a self-defense instruction also supports an instruction for second degree murder. It is the role of the court to determine if there is evidence to support a self-defense instruction, but it is the function of the jury to determine whether a defendant had a subjective belief that use of force was necessary and, if so, whether that belief was reasonable. The error would not automatically call for reversal, but with conflicting testimony, it was not harmless in the sense that the trial result would not have been different if the jury had been properly instructed. View "People v. Washington" on Justia Law