Mary Jane Theis

In this case, defendant Corey Clemons was convicted of armed robbery and home invasion while armed with a firearm, each carrying a Class X felony sentence enhanced by 15 years for firearm use, resulting in a 21-to-45-year range. The Illinois Supreme Court considered whether to overrule its prior decision in People v. Hauschild, which had found the armed robbery firearm enhancement unconstitutional under the proportionate penalties clause because it imposed a harsher penalty than the identical offense of armed violence, or to abandon the identical elements test used in such analyses. The court affirmed the validity of Hauschild and declined to abandon the test, relying on stare decisis and finding no special justification for departure. It therefore upheld the appellate court's remand for resentencing on the armed robbery conviction under the pre-enhancement statute with a 6-to-30-year range.

criminal law

This case challenged the constitutionality of Cook County's Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban ordinance prohibiting possession of certain assault weapons defined by model names or technical characteristics. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the ordinance violated due process, equal protection, and the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the due process and equal protection claims, finding the ordinance was neither unconstitutionally vague nor arbitrary in its classifications of weapons. It reversed dismissal of the Second Amendment claim, holding that plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded a cause of action warranting further proceedings in the trial court.

gunscivil rights

The case involved Joseph Baskerville, who was charged with obstructing a peace officer under Illinois law after he gave a deputy false information about his wife's whereabouts during an investigation of her driving on a suspended license. The Illinois Supreme Court addressed whether the obstruction statute requires proof of a physical act and whether knowingly providing false statements can qualify as obstruction. The court held that a physical act is not necessary and that false statements may constitute obstruction when they impede an officer's authorized duties, but concluded that the State failed to prove the statements here actually hindered the officer's performance of the traffic stop. Accordingly, the court affirmed the appellate court's reversal of the conviction.

criminal law

The case involved defendant Thomas Rinehart's 2007 conviction for criminal sexual assault against a 17-year-old with developmental disabilities, resulting in a 28-year prison sentence. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence but vacated the appellate court's remand order, holding that the statute requires an indeterminate mandatory supervised release term of three years to natural life rather than a determinate term chosen by the trial court within that range. The court reasoned that the legislature deliberately established this indeterminate MSR structure for sex offenses to address recidivism risks, as evidenced by related statutes providing for ongoing supervision and discharge reviews, in contrast to the determinate sentencing framework for other crimes. The court also rejected the defendant's challenge to the State's voir dire questions about delayed reporting by sexual assault victims.

criminal law

The case involved defendant Victor Villa, who was convicted by a jury of aggravated battery with a firearm and aggravated discharge of a firearm based on a drive-by shooting in Boone County, Illinois, under an accountability theory. The Illinois Supreme Court addressed whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to impeach Villa's testimony with his prior juvenile adjudication for burglary. The court held that Illinois law generally prohibits using juvenile adjudications to impeach a testifying defendant, that Villa's testimony did not open the door to such evidence by misleading the jury about his criminal history, and that the erroneous admission was not harmless. It therefore reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial. The ruling turned on interpretation of the Juvenile Court Act's restrictions on the use of delinquency findings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a petition for leave to appeal from an Illinois appellate court ruling in a criminal prosecution of Anthony Grayer. The Illinois Supreme Court denied the petition but invoked its supervisory authority to direct the Appellate Court, First District, to vacate its decision in People v. Grayer and reconsider the matter. The reconsideration is to be conducted in light of the Illinois Supreme Court's intervening decision in People v. Mullins to determine whether a different result is required. Justice Theis took no part in the order.

criminal lawprocedure

In Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., the plaintiffs sued Ford after a rear-end collision caused a pipe wrench in the trunk of their 1993 Lincoln Town Car to puncture the fuel tank, resulting in a fire that killed one plaintiff and severely injured the other. They alleged negligent product design based on the tank's location behind the axle, failure to install shielding, and failure to warn about risks from trunk contents, plus a postsale duty to warn after Ford learned of similar incidents. A jury awarded substantial compensatory and punitive damages, which the appellate court upheld. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, holding that the risk-utility analysis for negligent design showed no breach of duty given industry standards and the evidence presented, and that Illinois law does not recognize a postsale duty to warn in this context absent a voluntary undertaking or regulatory requirement.

torts & liability

This case concerns the Illinois Supreme Court's use of its supervisory authority in a criminal proceeding involving petitioner Dennis McGruder. The court directed the Appellate Court, First District, to vacate its 2009 order in the matter. It further instructed the appellate court to reconsider its decision in light of the 2010 ruling in People v. Morris to determine whether a different result is warranted. Justice Theis took no part in the decision.

criminal law

In People v. Almanza, the Illinois Supreme Court addressed a petition arising from an appellate decision in a criminal case involving defendant Jose Almanza. The court exercised its supervisory authority to direct the Appellate Court, First District, to vacate its order in case No. 1-07-2630. The appellate court was instructed to reconsider its ruling in light of the precedent established in People v. Morris, 236 Ill.2d 345, to determine if a different result is warranted. This order was entered on May 25, 2011, with Justice Theis taking no part.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether defendant Ezekiel Phillips waived his statutory right under section 113-4(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to receive in-court admonishments that failure to appear could result in trial and sentencing in absentia, based solely on warnings printed on the back of a bail bond slip that he signed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment vacating Phillips's in-absentia life sentence for armed violence and remanding for a new sentencing hearing. The court reasoned that the statute requires the trial court itself to advise the defendant, that the bond slip signed before a deputy clerk did not satisfy this requirement even though its language tracked the statute, and that Phillips's presence at trial did not constitute waiver. The majority rejected the State's arguments that written notice alone could suffice or that any error was harmless.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved taxpayers who successfully contested property tax assessments in Cook County and received refunds of overpaid taxes plus statutory interest under section 23-20 of the Property Tax Code, but disputed the applicable interest rate after a 2006 amendment changed it from a flat 5% to the lower of 5% or the CPI. The core dispute concerned whether the taxpayers were also entitled to judgment interest under section 2-1303 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the fixed amounts of statutory interest that remained unpaid during appeals. The Illinois Supreme Court held that judgment interest may be awarded on the set amount of outstanding interest owed after the collector paid the full principal tax refunds, affirmed in part and vacated in part the appellate court's rulings, dismissed one portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded for further proceedings on whether the collector had tendered payment to stop further accrual.

taxespropertyprocedure

The case concerned whether the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL) continued to apply to an entire school district after it annexed a small portion of territory from a county that had not held a PTELL referendum. The Illinois Supreme Court held that PTELL remained applicable to the whole district. The court reasoned that the PTELL statute consistently treats taxing districts as single entities, even when they cross county lines, and that the legislative purpose of providing voter control over taxes supported maintaining the limitation given that nearly all of the district's value was in the county that had approved PTELL.

taxes

The case involved defendant Aaron Martin, who was charged with aggravated DUI after his vehicle crossed the center line and collided with an oncoming car, killing two people; tests later showed trace methamphetamine in his urine but none in his blood. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision and reinstated Martin's conviction and sentence for aggravated DUI, while also upholding the underlying misdemeanor DUI finding. The court reasoned that under 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(6), it is unlawful to drive with any amount of a controlled substance in one's system regardless of impairment, and that an aggravated DUI conviction under section 11-501(d)(1)(F) requires only proof that the act of driving proximately caused the deaths, not that the substance itself caused impairment or the accident. The State met its burden by presenting evidence of the defendant's driving and the accident reconstruction showing he caused the collision.

criminal law

The case concerned whether Reginia Williams qualified for trade readjustment allowance benefits under the federal Trade Act of 1974 after losing her job due to a plant closure. The Illinois Department of Employment Security's Board of Review denied the benefits because Williams missed the statutory 8/16-week deadline for enrolling in an approved training program. The circuit court upheld the denial, but the appellate court reversed, and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed that reversal. The court held that the deadline was a nonjurisdictional time limit subject to equitable tolling, reasoning that the Department failed to provide required notice of the benefits and deadlines, Williams remained unaware of her potential eligibility until after the deadline passed, and she acted with due diligence upon learning of the program.

labor & employmentfederal power

In this case, defendants Beauchamp and Jones were convicted after a bench trial of burglary for entering a parked SUV without authority and removing its rear window with intent to commit theft. The appellate court reduced the convictions to theft on the ground that the evidence did not prove an entry into the vehicle, but the Illinois Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the burglary convictions and sentences. The court held that the defendants necessarily entered the protected space of the vehicle when they punched the lock, detached the hydraulic arms, and removed the window, satisfying the statutory element of entry. The decision rested on the interpretation of the burglary statute's requirement that a person enter a motor vehicle without authority and with intent to commit theft therein.

criminal law

In People v. Alsup, defendant Terry Alsup was convicted after a bench trial of two counts of possession of controlled substances with intent to deliver and sentenced to 11 years in prison. The appellate court reversed one conviction, finding a complete breakdown in the chain of custody for the evidence based on a discrepancy in the number of items described. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision and affirmed both convictions. The court held that the defendant waived any challenge to the chain of custody by entering into a stipulation with the prosecution regarding the forensic evidence and that the evidence presented, including officer testimony and the stipulation, did not show a complete breakdown in the chain. The stipulation included expert testimony confirming the chain of custody was maintained.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether the Forest Preserve District of Du Page County was required under section 7-171 of the Illinois Pension Code to enact an appropriation ordinance for its Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund contribution before passing a levy ordinance to raise revenue for that contribution. Taxpayers filed objections to the District's 1999-2006 levies, arguing the statute limited levies to amounts already appropriated and thus required appropriation first. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the District, and the appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that the statute imposes only a ceiling on the levy amount tied to the (eventually) appropriated sum and does not mandate any particular sequence; the District followed the procedures in the Downstate Forest Preserve District Act, which expressly allow a levy without a prior appropriation.

taxesprocedure

This case arose from an appellate court ruling in a criminal prosecution of John Foster. The Illinois Supreme Court used its supervisory authority to direct the Appellate Court, First District, to vacate its August 18, 2010 order denying the petition for rehearing in case No. 1-08-1525. The appellate court was further instructed to address the issues in the rehearing petition on their merits instead of denying the petition outright. Justice Theis took no part in the decision.

criminal lawprocedure