Michael M. Toomin

Defendant Lee Wigod was charged with failure to support under the Non-Support Punishment Act for unpaid child support arrears exceeding $20,000 over a period longer than one year. He entered a blind guilty plea after limited admonishments from the trial court regarding sentencing consequences and appeal rights, was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, and ordered to pay $85,802 in restitution. On appeal, Wigod challenged the adequacy of the plea admonishments under Supreme Court Rules 604 and 605, the ex parte denial of his post-plea motions, and the restitution order's scope, including potential inclusion of pre-Act arrears that could violate ex post facto principles. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, directing a full accounting of the arrearage chronology and credits to ensure compliance with the statute.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

In this criminal case, defendant William Johnson was convicted by a jury of home invasion and armed robbery based on evidence including testimony from his codefendant Jose Torres about a planned robbery that resulted in an assault on the victim. On appeal, Johnson argued that the trial court erred by rejecting his proposed supplemental voir dire questions on racial and ethnic bias and by failing to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) regarding juror understanding of legal principles. The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that any potential errors were not reversible because the evidence was not closely balanced and the claims were subject to procedural default. The court reviewed the trial record, including jury notes during deliberations, and concluded there was sufficient circumstantial evidence linking the defendant to the crimes without needing to address the merits of the voir dire issues in detail.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a police officer injured in a crash with an underinsured driver who sought to reform the Village of Lansing's agreement with the Illinois Municipal League Risk Management Association (IMLRMA) to include underinsured motorist coverage and to recover damages under section 155 of the Insurance Code. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that IMLRMA was not an insurer and that the village, as a self-insured municipality, was exempt from the underinsured coverage mandates of the Insurance Code and the Safety and Family Financial Responsibility Law. The appellate court affirmed, holding that precedent establishes self-insuring municipalities and their risk pools are not insurers subject to those statutory requirements, that no duty to provide such coverage exists, and that section 155 relief is unavailable against non-insurers. The court also dismissed the portion of the appeal from an earlier order denying uninsured coverage.

torts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Paula Bruce, as special administrator of her husband's estate, sued multiple defendants including Sherman Hospital and Dr. Arsenio Atadero for wrongful death and survival claims arising from alleged negligent failure to diagnose deep vein thrombosis during treatment that occurred primarily in McHenry County. After the case had been pending in McHenry County for nearly two years, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed it and refiled the identical claims in Cook County. Defendants moved to transfer the case back to McHenry County on intrastate forum non conveniens grounds, but the trial court denied the motions. The appellate court reversed, holding that plaintiff's choice of forum deserved less deference because she did not reside in Cook County, the events did not occur there, and most occurrence witnesses and key treatment locations were in McHenry County, while Cook County had only tenuous connections through unrelated hospital facilities and some damage witnesses.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved a motorcycle owner who sued his insurer, State Farm, for breach of contract and vexatious delay under the Insurance Code after the company denied his theft claim. State Farm moved to dismiss under section 2-619(a)(9), asserting that the insured's failure to cooperate with requests for financial documents, a credit report authorization, and an examination under oath violated the policy's cooperation clause and constituted an affirmative defense. The circuit court granted the dismissal with prejudice, and the appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the insurer's unrebutted affidavits established the lack of cooperation as a complete bar to the action and that plaintiffs must file counteraffidavits to contest such evidentiary facts.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, defendant Curtis Leach was convicted after a bench trial of first-degree murder for strangling his wife during a domestic argument and sentenced to 28 years in prison. He appealed, arguing that admission of autopsy findings from a retired pathologist who did not testify violated his confrontation rights under Crawford v. Washington, and that the evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew his acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm, warranting only a lesser homicide conviction. The appellate court had previously affirmed the conviction, and after the Illinois Supreme Court directed reconsideration in light of People v. Williams, the court again affirmed. It held that the confrontation issue did not require reversal under the applicable precedent and that the evidence, including the defendant's confession and the undisturbed crime scene, sufficiently supported the trial court's finding of the requisite mental state for first-degree murder.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, defendant Daniel Garcia appealed the second-stage dismissal of his postconviction petition challenging his 1997 convictions for murder, aggravated kidnapping, and robbery based on claims involving a discredited serologist, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, actual innocence, due process violations, and the need for additional testing of physical evidence. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that Garcia had not made a substantial showing of any constitutional violations that would warrant an evidentiary hearing. The court further held that postconviction counsel had satisfied the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 651(c) by properly shaping and presenting the claims from the record without any obligation to seek out new evidence such as DNA testing.

criminal lawprocedure

In Rodman v. CSX Intermodal, Inc., the plaintiff was injured in a collision with a CSX employee who was driving his personal vehicle on company premises to the main building in order to punch out at the end of his shift, as required by the employer. The circuit court granted summary judgment to CSX on the ground that the employee was not acting within the scope of employment at the time of the accident. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to scope of employment because the employee was still on the clock, was fulfilling a mandatory directive to punch out, and was using a route and practice that was common and not prohibited by the employer. The court explained that under respondeat superior, an employer may be vicariously liable when an employee's conduct is at least in part motivated by serving the employer's interests, and summary judgment on scope-of-employment questions is generally inappropriate.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved defendant Jacoby Adams, who was convicted after a jury trial of armed habitual criminal based on his possession of a firearm and prior felony convictions, and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Adams appealed, arguing that the armed habitual criminal statute was facially unconstitutional under due process and ex post facto principles, that amending the indictment violated his speedy trial rights, that his motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence was wrongly denied, that a defense expert was improperly barred, and that the court's response to a jury question was erroneous. The court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the statute did not violate constitutional protections, that the amendment did not implicate speedy trial rights, that probable cause supported the arrest, and that no errors occurred regarding the expert or jury question response.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case involved the conviction of defendant Armando Antonio for involuntary manslaughter and concealment of a homicidal death after the disappearance of Elvia Torres-Bahena in 2002. On appeal, the defendant contended that his right to confront witnesses was violated by a pathologist's testimony narrating examinations performed by nontestifying experts and that he was prejudiced by the admission of other crimes evidence regarding a prior threat. The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the confrontation right was not abridged and that the other crimes evidence was admissible for purposes such as modus operandi, intent, or absence of mistake rather than to show propensity. The court reviewed the evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion and found no error in the trial court's balancing of probative value against prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs sued Enterprise Leasing after a rented van rolled over, causing serious injuries, claiming the accident resulted from manufacturing defects in the brakes or suspension; they later added a spoliation claim when Enterprise destroyed the van after sending notice of its planned disposal. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Enterprise on the strict liability and negligence claims and dismissed the spoliation claim. On appeal, the court affirmed summary judgment on strict liability but reversed on negligence and spoliation, holding that factual issues remained on whether Enterprise breached a duty of care and that the spoliation claim could proceed independently or alongside the underlying negligence action because a reasonable person would foresee the van's materiality to potential litigation. The matter was remanded for further proceedings, with the court noting that spoliation liability requires proof that destruction prevented proving the underlying suit.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a petition by the guardian of Bozenna Michalak, an adjudicated disabled adult, to amend her revocable trust under section 11a-18(a-5) of the Probate Act to remove Robert and Jolanta Kaleta as successor trustee and contingent beneficiaries and substitute Jacqueline Zagorski in those roles, based on evidence of possible undue influence when the trust was created. The probate court granted the amendment after a hearing that included a guardian ad litem report, and later allowed a reverse mortgage on the trust property. On appeal, the Kaletas challenged the statutory authority for the amendment, the reappointment and scope of the guardian ad litem, denial of discovery, admission of hearsay, and the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Probate Act permits amendments beyond tax purposes, the procedural and evidentiary rulings were proper, and the trial court's findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved a challenge to the legality of a Terry stop and frisk of defendant Caleb Wells, who was charged with unlawful use of a weapon by a felon after officers responding to a domestic disturbance call immediately handcuffed and searched him, recovering a handgun from his sock and later ammunition from his vehicle. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, finding insufficient justification for the stop and frisk. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed, holding that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion of danger or weapons to support a frisk under Terry because the radio calls made no mention of a gun and the defendant was cooperative and unarmed in view, that the immediate handcuffing exceeded the scope of a proper investigatory stop, and that the vehicle search and discovery of ammunition were fruits of the unlawful arrest not subject to exceptions like inevitable discovery or community caretaking. The court rejected the State's arguments that the stop was supported by probable cause or that attenuation broke the chain from the initial illegality.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rightsguns

In People v. Gomez, defendant Raul Gomez was convicted after a jury trial of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder for fatally shooting Rafael Trujillo and wounding Luis Aguirre during a confrontation outside Aguirre's home, where defendant claimed self-defense. On appeal, Gomez challenged the trial court's denial of his motion in limine to limit cross-examination of a defense witness (his former girlfriend), admission of his prior conviction, refusal to instruct the jury on a provocation-passion theory of second degree murder, and limitations on the scope of his direct examination regarding his state of mind. The appellate court reviewed the claims under abuse of discretion standards for evidentiary rulings and found no error in the trial court's decisions, including that objections to improper questions were properly sustained and that the evidence did not support the requested jury instruction. The court therefore affirmed the convictions and sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, defendant Vondrae Edward was convicted of burglary following a bench trial after police stopped him and two companions pulling a city-owned garbage can containing new clothing with retail tags, which led to the discovery of a forced entry at a nearby store. Prior to trial, the court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, finding that he lacked standing to challenge the officers' inspection of the garbage can because its contents had been relinquished, that the initial stop was justified by community caretaking responsibilities, and that probable cause to arrest developed once the clothing was linked to the store. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the officers acted reasonably throughout the encounter and that the evidence, including the defendant's statements and actions, was sufficient to establish his accountability for the burglary.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a medical malpractice claim brought by a mother on behalf of her minor son against the obstetrician who delivered him, alleging that the doctor caused a permanent brachial plexus injury to the baby's left arm by applying excessive traction during a shoulder dystocia delivery. The defendant maintained that the injury resulted from natural uterine forces rather than any negligence. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict in favor of the defendant after allowing cross-examination of the plaintiff's expert with a medical journal article, giving certain jury instructions on the standard of care, and barring testimony on whether an arrest of labor occurred. On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the article could be used for impeachment once its author was established as reliable, that the instructions were proper, and that no other reversible errors occurred under the applicable discovery and evidence rules.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

In this case involving a property damage claim from an automobile accident, the plaintiff appealed after the trial court entered judgment on the defendant's counterclaim and imposed sanctions on plaintiff's counsel without proper notice. The appellate court vacated the judgment and sanctions, remanding for further proceedings. The core reasoning was that the proceedings violated due process because the counterclaim hearing was conducted ex parte without valid notice to the parties or counsel, and sanctions were imposed without affording an opportunity to be heard.

proceduretorts & liability

In People v. Scott, defendant Omar Scott was convicted after a jury trial of first degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm, and after a simultaneous bench trial of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, arising from a 2004 shooting at a Chicago lounge that killed one victim and left another paralyzed. On appeal, Scott argued that the trial judge's blanket policy of deferring rulings on the admissibility of prior convictions violated his right to decide whether to testify, and that the court erred in admitting extensive testimony from the surviving victim about her injuries, rehabilitation, and changed life circumstances. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that the first claim was foreclosed by the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in People v. Averett and that the victim's testimony was relevant and admissible to prove the injury element of aggravated battery with a firearm under the statute. The court also corrected errors in the mittimus regarding sentencing and merger of counts. The judgment of the circuit court was affirmed with the mittimus corrected.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned the adoption of minor Samuel E., who had been adopted from Ethiopia by Ann H. but later placed with others after behavioral issues arose. Ann signed consents for specific adoptions that ultimately failed, and she later sought to revoke her consent and reclaim custody via a habeas petition and motion to dismiss Sharon S.'s adoption petition. The circuit court denied the motion, finding the consent was general rather than specific and that revocation was barred by the absolute 12-month limitation under section 11 of the Adoption Act, while also rejecting claims of fraud or duress. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that the statutory time bar prevented any challenge to the consent and that Ann had no remaining legal right to custody.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned the adjudication of Jessica M. as a delinquent minor for aggravated battery based on her role in a physical attack on Rosalinda Rodriguez outside the victim's home. The appellate court, following a supervisory order from the Illinois Supreme Court, directed the circuit court to vacate one of the two delinquency findings under the one-act, one-crime rule, correct the trial order, and adjust the probation term to terminate on the respondent's twenty-first birthday. The court upheld the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the remaining adjudication, found no error in the exclusion of certain reputation testimony, and rejected constitutional challenges to the mandatory DNA sampling statute under the Fourth Amendment and the Illinois Constitution's privacy protections.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights