Vicki Wright

The case involved the State seeking to terminate the parental rights of Clarence T., the father of minors S.D., L.D., and E.T., after the father was convicted of first-degree murder for stabbing the children's mother 30 times in the presence of one child and had multiple prior convictions for violent offenses. The trial court denied the father's motion for the judge to recuse himself based on overhearing unrelated courtroom discussion of murder trial evidence, found the father unfit due to depravity, and determined that termination of parental rights was in the children's best interests given their lack of bond with the father, adjustment to foster care, and need for permanence. On appeal, the Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed both the denial of recusal and the termination order, holding that the judge properly relied only on evidence presented in the termination proceedings and that the best-interests findings were supported by the record under the statutory factors. The court emphasized the children's security, continuity of care, and lack of relationship with the incarcerated father.

family lawcriminal lawprocedure

In People v. Havlin, the defendant faced charges of unlawful possession of a controlled substance after a traffic stop where officers found pills in the vehicle and the defendant admitted ownership during questioning. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress those statements on the grounds that Miranda warnings had not been given. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes during the general on-scene investigation. The court reasoned that the defendant was not handcuffed, restrained, or told he was under arrest, remained with his companions, and was free to leave, so the encounter did not involve the custody and interrogation that trigger Miranda protections.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, defendant Kevin Gordon was charged with obstructing a peace officer, a Class A misdemeanor, after police stopped a vehicle for traffic violations, issued him a seat belt citation, arrested another passenger for cannabis possession, and repeatedly ordered him and others to leave the scene while they completed their work and waited for a tow truck. Gordon refused to comply, yelled at and threatened the officers, and returned to the area after briefly leaving, leading to his arrest. Following a bench trial, the court convicted him based on evidence that his actions interfered with the officers' duties. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the charging instrument sufficiently alleged and the evidence proved that Gordon knowingly obstructed the officers' authorized acts. A dissent argued that the facts did not constitute an offense and that the charging document was defective.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, the State charged Victor Russell with first-degree murder after he allegedly cut Carla Spires's neck with a sharp object, leading to her death; a jury convicted him and the trial court imposed a 50-year sentence. On appeal, Russell argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to individually question jurors as required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) regarding principles such as the presumption of innocence and the State's burden of proof. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence against Russell was not closely balanced and that the Rule 431(b) error, though clear, did not affect the fairness of the trial or challenge the integrity of the judicial process under the plain-error doctrine as clarified in People v. Thompson. The court therefore found no basis to reverse despite the forfeited claim of error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the dissolution of a marriage between Earl and Joanne Lichtenauer after nearly three decades, focusing on the division of marital assets and the award of permanent maintenance following the sale of Earl's business interests in Cipher and Baum Signs. During proceedings, evidence showed that Earl's live-in girlfriend became president of a newly formed company, Correct Electric, earning over $120,000 annually with the ability to transfer shares to Earl, while Earl claimed only his $70,000 salary as income. The trial court found the corporate structure contrived and imputed additional earning capacity to Earl when applying the factors under section 504 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, resulting in a permanent maintenance award of $1,850 per month to Joanne. Earl appealed the maintenance award, contending that the court improperly considered his girlfriend's income and overstated his ability to pay. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the finding of a contrived arrangement and that imputing income was proper for determining maintenance.

family law

In this case, plaintiffs Pat Ashley and Scott Waple sued IM Steel, Inc., Marc Pozan, and related companies under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for unpaid wages and commissions earned while selling steel for Global Steel Trading Corporation (GST) and Belson Scrap & Steel, Inc. After a default judgment against GST and Belson, the trial court ruled that IM Steel was not a successor corporation and that Pozan had no liability for commissions that accrued after the companies made voluntary assignments for the benefit of creditors on May 7, 2001. The appellate court affirmed that IM Steel was not liable as a successor and that Pozan bore no responsibility for certain post-assignment commissions tied to IM Steel sales, but reversed the determination that the assignment date automatically cut off Pozan's potential personal liability under the Act for other commissions. The court remanded the case for further proceedings on whether the plaintiffs were employees of GST or Belson and on the remaining issues in the third amended complaint. The core reasoning centered on the legal effect of the creditor assignments, corporate succession rules, and the scope of officer liability under the Wage Payment Act.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In People v. Bomar, the defendant was charged with attempted first degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, and aggravated discharge of a firearm after an incident in which he shot the victim during a dispute stemming from a workplace conflict, and the State also sought to revoke his probation from a prior case based on the new charges. A jury convicted the defendant on all counts and the trial court revoked probation. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the convictions and revocation, the trial court's handling of his post-trial ineffective assistance claims, and the orders requiring him to submit DNA samples and pay analysis fees in both cases. The appellate court addressed these issues under the relevant criminal code provisions and administrative rules governing DNA collection, with a dissent concluding that the statute does not mandate duplicate samples or fees from an offender who has already provided one.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a petition by the Department of Healthcare and Family Services on behalf of Jennifer Jorgenson seeking child support from George Jorgenson for their daughter born in 1990. The trial court ordered current support at $75 per week and later awarded retroactive support totaling $61,125 back to 1992. On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court vacated the retroactive support portion of the order and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the informal hearing denied the respondent a meaningful opportunity to present evidence or testimony regarding his income and contributions, in violation of due process.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by the parents of a minor child against a urologist and her medical group, alleging negligence in recommending and performing bilateral ureteral reimplantation surgery on the child and in managing her postoperative care, which allegedly caused complications including urinary issues. A jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and the trial court denied the plaintiffs' post-trial motions including one for mistrial based on claimed evidentiary errors. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings on motions in limine regarding insurance matters and alternative causes of symptoms, in allowing or limiting expert testimony and cross-examination about medical literature, and in denying a mistrial. The court reasoned that the challenged evidence was relevant for impeachment or to show the basis of opinions, that proper foundations were laid under Illinois evidence rules, and that any potential prejudice did not warrant reversal.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by the estate of a 92-year-old nursing home resident against Residential Alternatives of Illinois, Inc., alleging violations of the Illinois Nursing Home Care Act through negligent care and a related wrongful death claim. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration based on documents signed at admission, including a nursing home contract and a separate arbitration agreement. On appeal, the court reversed that ruling, reinstated the complaint, and remanded for further proceedings. The appellate court reasoned that the arbitration agreement's language referred only to disputes arising under the agreement itself or documents connected to it, without clearly incorporating or applying to claims from the separate nursing care contract, rendering it unenforceable for these claims.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case involved defendant Juan Trent Nesbit, who was convicted by a jury of armed habitual criminal, unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon after police stopped him in a vehicle containing a handgun; he had prior felony convictions and was on parole at the time. On appeal, Nesbit challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the armed habitual criminal charge, alleged improper prosecutorial questioning during trial, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to surrender his bond to secure presentence credit. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient based on officer testimony and stipulations regarding prior convictions and parole status, that any questioning issues did not warrant reversal, and that the ineffective assistance claim could not be resolved on the existing record without speculation. A partial dissent argued that counsel's failure to surrender the bond constituted ineffective assistance warranting remand for credit calculation.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involved Andres Roa appealing his conviction under the Illinois Controlled Substances Act for possessing cocaine, based on evidence found during a search of his vehicle. The defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained after a traffic stop for speeding on Interstate 80. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the trial court's ruling after reconsidering in light of People v. Cosby, holding that the officer validly obtained voluntary consent to search once the stop had concluded with issuance of a warning citation and return of the defendant's documents. The court reasoned that the consent was not an improper extension of the stop under applicable precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, the State charged Drew Peterson with unlawful use of a weapon based on possession of a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches. Peterson raised affirmative defenses of vindictive and selective prosecution and sought broad discovery of prosecutorial decision-making materials; the trial court ordered the discovery, and when the State refused to comply, dismissed the charges with prejudice as a sanction. The appellate court reversed, holding that Peterson failed to present a colorable basis for a vindictive-prosecution claim and that the requested materials constituted protected work product not subject to disclosure under Supreme Court Rule 412. The court therefore vacated the discovery order and dismissal, reinstated the charges, and dismissed Peterson's cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction over other interlocutory rulings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with driving under the influence of cannabis after a police officer observed him in a parked car and detected signs of cannabis use. During a bench trial, after the prosecution rested and the defense moved for a directed verdict, the trial court pronounced the defendant guilty without ruling on the motion, without allowing the defense to present evidence, and without permitting a closing argument; the court then immediately imposed a sentence of supervision. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, reasoning that the trial court's actions denied the defendant his fundamental constitutional right to present evidence and that this error constituted plain error under the second prong of the plain-error analysis.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Russell, the State charged Victor Russell with first-degree murder for cutting Carla Spires's neck with a sharp object, causing her death; a jury convicted him, and the trial court sentenced him to 50 years in prison. On appeal, Russell argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to individually question jurors on all principles required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) during voir dire. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence and that, although the trial court erred by not strictly complying with Rule 431(b), the error did not render the trial fundamentally unfair under the plain-error doctrine because the relevant principles were addressed by the judge or prosecutor during questioning. The court therefore concluded that reversal was not warranted.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned defendant Dale Klein, who faced multiple charges including DUI, driving while license revoked, improper lane usage, and no insurance after a 2007 single-car accident, along with a separate aggravated DUI felony indictment. After the state nol-prossed the initial felony charge and refiled it, the defendant filed a speedy trial demand in the felony case; the trial court denied his subsequent motion for discharge based on an alleged speedy trial violation, and a jury convicted him. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of discharge and the conviction, holding that the felony and traffic cases remained separate prosecutions not formally joined, the speedy trial demand in the felony case did not trigger dismissal of the refiled charge, and trial occurred within the 160-day statutory term.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved juvenile delinquency petitions filed against minor Christopher L. in 2004 for residential burglary and armed robbery; he admitted the charges, was made a ward of the court, and placed on probation. After violating probation in 2006 by committing another burglary, the trial court committed him to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice until age 21. On appeal, the minor argued that the proceedings were invalid because his natural mother (Marilyn E.) was not named as a party or properly served, as the petitions incorrectly listed another woman and the actual mother lived out of state with limited contact. The appellate court held that the trial court obtained subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the minor through the filing of the petition and his appearance, and that the minor forfeited any challenge to lack of notice to his mother by failing to raise the issue in the trial court despite knowing her identity. The court affirmed the commitment order, relying on precedent that such defects do not divest jurisdiction when the minor appears.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

In People v. Close, the defendant was charged with felony driving while license revoked after a police officer conducted a traffic stop based solely on a registration check showing the vehicle's owner had a revoked license with a restricted driving permit, matched the driver to the owner's photo, and observed no traffic violations. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to quash the arrest and suppress evidence, finding the stop lacked reasonable suspicion. On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed, holding that an officer may stop a vehicle upon reasonable belief that the driver is the revoked owner to investigate compliance with the restricted permit, as the permit serves as a potential statutory defense rather than a prerequisite for establishing suspicion. The majority reasoned that the officer's observations, including the day and time, supported a reasonable, articulable suspicion of unlawful driving, distinguishing it from a mere hunch. A dissent argued that knowledge of the revocation alone was insufficient without specific facts indicating violation of the permit terms.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, defendant Spencer Harris was convicted by a jury of armed robbery and sentenced to natural life imprisonment as a habitual criminal. After an initial appeal led to remand for consideration of his pro se post-trial claims, the trial court denied his amended motion for a new trial, which raised issues including the undisclosed use of a stun belt during trial that allegedly prevented him from testifying. The appellate court reversed the denial, holding that the stun belt's use without the trial court's knowledge or any Boose hearing inquiry into the necessity of restraints amounted to plain error that infringed on the defendant's constitutional right to testify. The court remanded the matter for a new trial, concluding that the error compromised the integrity of the judicial process and denied the defendant a fair trial.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In this case, following a conviction for unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, the defendant was sentenced to court supervision that included a requirement to complete a drug/alcohol evaluation. When she appeared at a status hearing without having done so, the trial court found her in indirect civil contempt without prior notice of contempt proceedings or an opportunity to present evidence and ordered her jailed until she complied. The appellate court reversed and vacated the contempt order, concluding that the proceeding was for indirect civil contempt and that the lack of notice and hearing violated the defendant's due process rights.

criminal lawprocedure