Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant, convicted of first degree murder for a 2003 shooting death, was sentenced to 55 years' imprisonment. On appeal, his arguments included denial of Sixth Amendment right to counsel because police barred his attorney from observing witnesses during a lineup. The appellate court affirmed, finding the evidence closely balanced and applying plain-error analysis. The highest court affirmed after holding that the matter was not within the purview of plain-error review and the evidence was not closely balanced. Even if the right to counsel had attached at the time of the line-up, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt in the record, the defendant could not show prejudice. The record was undeveloped on the issue of whether defendant was entitled to counsel at the line-up, because the issue was not raised at trial. View "People v. White" on Justia Law

In 2003, wife filed domestic battery charges against husband; he was found not guilty and filed for dissolution. At a 2005 hearing on a motion to modify temporary child support, the judge stated that the parties had been before him in the domestic battery case. Neither lawyer objected. Nearly a year later, husband sought substitution of judge, asserting bias. Wife testified that she worked part-time at a fitness club where the judge was a member, but had only said "hello," twice, in passing; husband testified that wife had indicated that she was "taking care of" the judge and that the judge had disclosed that wife had approached him several times. The petition was denied for lack of proof of actual prejudice. The appellate court and highest court affirmed. The "actual prejudice" standard was properly applied; a proposed "appearance of impropriety" standard would encourage judge-shopping. A litigant is entitled to one automatic substitution if requested before trial or hearing begins and before the assigned judge has ruled on any substantial issue, 735 ILCS 5/2–1001(a)(2)(ii). After a substantive ruling, however, (a)(3) requires substitution only when cause exists. The statute does not define "cause," but recusal is required when the probability of actual bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. View "O'Brien v. O'Brien" on Justia Law

Taxpayers challenged three substantive bills and one appropriation bill, part of capital projects, signed by the governor in July 2009. The appellate court held that Public Act 96–34 violated the single-subject clause of the Illinois Constitution, and that the other acts were invalid because they were contingent on enactment of Public Act 96–34. The supreme court reversed, reinstating the trial court's dismissal. All of the substantive provisions in Act 96–34 are connected to capital projects; they establish revenue sources to be deposited into the Capital Projects Fund or are related to the overall subject of the Act in that they help implement other provisions. The court upheld the other acts against single-subject challenges, including challenges based on the contingency clauses. Nothing in the state constitution prohibits making legislation contingent on a separate legislative enactment. The enactments did not violate the separation of powers doctrine, public funds clause, uniformity clause, or run afoul of constitutional veto procedures. An enactment that authorizes expenditure of public funds for a public purpose is not unconstitutional for incidental benefit to private interests. There is nothing constitutionally impermissible about the inclusion of the "as approximated below" language. View "Wirtz v. Quinn" on Justia Law

The juvenile was adjudicated delinquent based on findings of criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12–13(a)(1)) and attempted robbery (720 ILCS 5/8–4(a), 18–1). The trial court ordered him committed for an indeterminate term, to automatically terminate in 15 years or at age 21. The appellate and state supreme courts affirmed. The evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction, despite some inconsistencies in testimony. The court presumed that the trial court did not allow the juvenile to be shackled without a hearing on whether restraint was required, absent any indication in the record that the court was aware that he was in shackles before he was called to testify. Delinquency adjudications are not the equivalent of felony convictions,so it is not unconstitutional that juveniles do not have a right to a jury trial. Imposition of collateral consequences on juveniles adjudicated delinquent for committing felony sex offenses, such as reduced confidentiality, unavailability of expungement, and possibility of involuntary commitment under the Sexually Violent Persons Act,do not negate the rehabilitative purposes of the Act so that a jury trial would be required. View "In re Jonathon C.B., a Minor" on Justia Law

In 1996 the plaintiff, a sergeant with the forest preserve district police, was indicted for unauthorized purchase of badges and suspended without pay. The district did not respond to his inquiry about a hearing. After the criminal charges were dismissed in 2001, plaintiff requested reinstatement and back pay. The district responded that it was seeking discharge based on rules violations. Plaintiff disputed the charges and asserted that the suspension violated the rules. The employee appeals board declined to hear the matter. At a predisciplinary hearing, a three-member panel of district supervisors refused to answer questions about which rules applied to the suspension. After a hearing before the employee appeals board that concluded in 2004, plaintiff was discharged and his claim of unlawful suspension was found to be forfeited. The circuit court affirmed. The appellate court vacated. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and remanded, rejecting the appellate court's determination that the board lacked jurisdiction. View "Genius v. County of Cook" on Justia Law

The Illinois Department of Corrections sought to recover the costs of defendant’s incarceration under 730 ILCS 5/1. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of the Department for $455,203.14, but precluded the Department from satisfying any of the judgment out of money defendant had earned while working for prison industry. Those wages had already been applied to offset the cost of incarceration. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, but it reversed with respect to prison earnings. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that once an inmate's wages have been properly subjected to the offset provision of section 3–12–5 of the Code, the remaining wages are not subject to collection. View "People v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

In defendant's trial for criminal sexual assault, the circuit court admitted evidence that defendant had also been involved in criminal sexual assault of another woman. The court cited the Code of Criminal Procedure, 725 ILCS 5/115–7.3, permitting the evidence to show a defendant’s propensity to commit sex crimes. When defendant sought to admission of evidence of his acquittal in the prior case, the court rejected his request. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison. The appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The statutory language permits admission of both evidence of defendant’s commission of another enumerated offense and evidence to rebut that proof or an inference from that proof. Exclusion of the acquittal evidence limited the jury’s ability to assess testimony from the victim in the earlier case and was very prejudicial to the defendant. View "People v. Ward" on Justia Law

Based on the six-year statute of repose, (735 ILCS 5/13–214.3(c), the trial court dismissed a malpractice claim alleging that defendant negligently prepared a quitclaim deed in 1997 that failed to convey real estate to plaintiff and her husband as joint tenants with right of survivorship. In 2007, when her husband died, plaintiff discovered that the property was still in trust and that ownership would pass to her stepson. The appellate court reversed and remanded. The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal. The statute of repose is not tied to discovery of injury; the period of repose in a legal malpractice case begins to run on the last date on which the attorney performs the work involved in the alleged negligence. View "Snyder v. Heidelberger" on Justia Law

The defendant, charged with the attempted robbery death of a cab driver, agreed to plead guilty and receive a 28-year sentence on the charge of first degree murder and a 4-year sentence on the charge of possession of contraband while in a penal institution, to be served consecutively. Before accepting defendant’s plea, the trial court admonished him that the sentencing range was 20 to 60 years’ imprisonment. The state presented a factual basis for both pleas that included use of a gun. After sentencing the court denied a motion to vacate the plea. The appellate court reversed, reasoning that defendant was subject to a mandatory 15-year enhancement for being armed with a gun, so that the mandatory minimum sentence was 35 years. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed and remanded for trial, stating that the trial court could not impose a sentence that did not include the enhancement. View "People v. White" on Justia Law

The trial court dismissed a third amended class action complaint filed in connection with power outages during severe storms. The complaint alleged negligence, breach of contract, and violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1). The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The electric utility's tariff precludes an award of damages; even if such claims were not barred, jurisdiction over matters relating to the utility's service and infrastructure lies with the Illinois Commerce Commission. The Consumer Fraud Act claim alleged that that the company knew or should have known that it failed to sufficiently establish policies and procedures to prevent controllable interruptions of power and to timely respond to those interruptions, in order to protect the health, safety, comfort and convenience of its customers, including those on the life support registry. The claim failed because the company is not required to prioritize those on the life support registry and does not intend that those on the registry rely on it doing so. View "Sheffler v. Commonwealth Edison Co." on Justia Law