Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Chicago officers were on patrol when a man flagged them down. He did not give his name and was not asked for it, but said that there was a “possible gun” in a tan, four-door Lincoln with several persons inside. Shortly thereafter, officers saw a tan, four-door Lincoln, stopped it, and placed the driver in handcuffs. No traffic violations supported the stop. This defendant was a backseat passenger and was ordered out. He “took off running” and dropped a loaded handgun two feet from the car. Defendant was arrested after he fell. The trial court stated that a motion to suppress the gun would not have succeeded and defense counsel did not make such a motion. The defendant was convicted of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and received an eight-year prison term. The appellate and supreme courts affirmed. When an ineffectiveness claim is based on counsel’s failure to file a suppression motion, the defendant must establish prejudice by demonstrating that the unargued motion was meritorious and that a reasonable probability existed that the trial outcome would have been different had the evidence been suppressed. The initial stop effected an illegal seizure of the defendant; the tip was insufficient to justify the stop. However, the defendant could not prove that the gun itself was the fruit of that illegal seizure. The taint of illegality was removed because the chain of causation proceeding from the unlawful conduct was interrupted, by an intervening circumstance: the defendant’s flight. That flight ended the seizure, and the defendant conceded as much. View "People v. Henderson" on Justia Law

Chicago police responded to a street fight. One yelled “police, stop, stop,” but M.I., then 16, fired multiple gunshots in their direction. A petition to have M.I. adjudicated delinquent was filed, and the state successfully moved to designate the proceedings as an “extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution.” M.I. waived his right to a jury trial. After adjudicating him delinquent the circuit court sentenced him for aggravated discharge of a firearm, to an indeterminate period in the juvenile division of the Department of Corrections, to end no later than his twenty-first birthday. The court also imposed a 23-year adult sentence, stayed pending successful completion of the juvenile sentence. The appellate and supreme courts affirmed. M.I. argued that the hearing on designation as an extended jurisdiction juvenile proceeding was not held within the statutory time period, but the supreme court held that the statute is directory rather than mandatory. M.I. raised a constitutional vagueness challenge to the statutory provision that a stay of an adult sentence may be revoked for violation of the “conditions” of a sentence. Such a stay was part of the original sentence, and the state is seeking revocation based on a subsequent drug offense, but this was not the provision under which revocation was sought, so M.I. lacked standing for the challenge. M.I. also claimed that there was a due process violation in imposing a 23-year adult sentence, citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The court found no Apprendi violation, noting that the extended jurisdiction juvenile statute is dispositional rather than adjudicatory. View "In re M.I." on Justia Law

While patrolling a motel parking area, police approached defendant’s car and saw, in plain view in the center console, a large bullet. They ordered defendant and his passengers out of the car, handcuffed hem, found several more bullets in the car and on defendant’s person, then found a .454 revolver under a floor mat on the front passenger side. The circuit court suppressed all of the evidence, concluding that the challenged police conduct subjected defendant to an unlawful search without probable cause because the bullet did not establish evidence of a crime. The appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. The parties agree that the officers’ initial approach and their questioning of defendant was lawful. The officers were in a vulnerable situation when they observed the bullet. It was dusk and the officers were on foot in a parking lot away from their vehicle; they were outnumbered by defendant and his two passengers, who were in a running car. The officers were forced to make a quick decision based on limited information after seeing the bullet. A reasonably cautious individual in a similar situation could reasonably suspect the presence of a gun, implicating officer safety. View "People v. Colyar" on Justia Law

In 2003, Domagala, a live-in caretaker, was seen repeatedly striking and pressing the throat of his 84-year-old charge, Stanley. Approximately a week after being taken to the emergency room, Stanley was discharged to a nursing home with a feeding tube in place. While in the nursing home, Stanley pulled out the tube several times causing peritonitis, a systemic infection, which ultimately led to his death. Domagala was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to 40 years. He filed a post-conviction petition, alleging that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to conduct a diligent investigation to discover that a superseding, intervening cause, i.e., gross negligence of treating medical staff, and not petitioner’s conduct, caused the death of the victim. The circuit court dismissed. The appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, finding that Domagala is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. View "People v. Domagala" on Justia Law

In 2006, defendant was indicted for aggravated battery and mob action. Multiple continuance motions were filed by defendant and the state. When the case was called for jury trial in May 2010, the victim-witnesses had not arrived. The judge began jury selection, over defense counsel’s objection, although the defendant had not arrived. When the witnesses had not arrived, more than 90 minutes later, the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant and entered a written order stating that the “matter is dismissed.” The appellate court held that that the order was an appealable dismissal of charges rather than a nonappealable acquittal, then reversed and remanded for trial. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. Normally jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn, but under these unique facts, the defendant was never at risk of conviction. The state indicated it would not participate prior to the jury being sworn. The court stated that it understood the court’s frustration regarding delays and its desire to control its docket, but “cannot countenance proceedings which the court labels as a ‘trial” but which simply prove to be ‘a sham [or] artifice employed by the trial judge to achieve the result of a dismissal with prejudice for want of prosecution.’” View "People v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with attempted murder, armed robbery, unlawful possession of a firearm, and aggravated battery with a firearm. A public defender was appointed, but defendant later successfully requested a different attorney. Defendant subsequently requested to proceed pro se. In granting this request, the trial court admonished him, and defendant waived his right to counsel. He then made motions, causing the matter to be continued. On the morning of trial, defendant stated that he no longer wanted to represent himself and requested a third appointment of counsel. The trial court, noting that defendant had refused to cooperate with two public defenders, viewed the request as a delaying tactic and denied it. The trial commenced with jury selection. Defendant refused to participate without counsel and remained in his holding cell. He later participated without counsel. He did not testify or call witnesses, but made an opening statement and closing argument and cross-examined prosecution witnesses, including four victims. Following conviction, the court imposed a 95-year term. The appellate court found plain error and ordered a new trial. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, finding the Code of Criminal Procedure (725 ILCS 5/115-4.1(a)) ambiguous, but concluding that “trial in absentia” provisions were not relevant. The trial court in this case was not statutorily required to appoint a third public defender simply because defendant decided to waive his right to be present during voir dire. View "People v. Eppinger" on Justia Law

In 2005, defendant was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm and sentenced to 12 years. The appellate court affirmed. In 2008, he filed, pro se, a post-conviction petition. It was dismissed; the appellate court affirmed. In 2009, again pro se, he sought leave to file a successive petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. (725 ILCS 5/122-1(f)), alleging that he had just discovered that, after serving his sentence, he will be subject to an additional three-year term of mandatory supervised release (MSR). MSR was not mentioned when he was sentenced, which, he claimed, denied him due process. The trial and appellate court rejected his argument. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The Criminal Code states that for this offense, the three-year MSR term shall be included in the sentence “as though written therein.” The Post-Conviction Hearing Act states that a petitioner must show “cause” for failure to raise his claim earlier. This claimed defect can never be “cause” because the petitioner is presumptively charged with knowledge of mandatory supervised release as a matter of law. The court recommended that the legislature address more specifically how one seeking leave to file a successive post-conviction petition meets the statutory requirements of showing cause and prejudice. View "People v. Evans" on Justia Law

In 2008, Chicago police in an unmarked car saw the defendant yelling “dro, dro” to a passing vehicle, in front of a Chicago Housing Authority building, in an area known for marijuana sales. The arresting officer testified said that “dro, dro” is slang for the sale of cannabis, and case law has recognized that this refers to a higher quality, or hydroponic, marijuana. The defendant was arrested for violation of a municipal ordinance forbidding the solicitation of unlawful business on a public way. At the scene, plastic bags containing what appeared to be cannabis were found on his person, and, at the police station, plastic bags of what later tested positive for cocaine were also found in his clothing. All took place without a warrant. The circuit court denied a motion to suppress; the appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court, reversed finding that there was probable cause to arrest. The court noted that the police testimony was unrebutted; facts known to police at the time of the arrest provided reasonable grounds to believe defendant was committing a criminal offense.View "People v. Grant" on Justia Law

In 1997, at age 15 and without a drivers’ license, Jackson was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. The Secretary of State created a driving record, issued a license number, then suspended the license under 625 ILCS 5/11- 501.1(h). In 1998 he was charged with driving on a suspended license. He was convicted. In 2006 Jackson obtained a new license, answering no to a question as to whether his license had ever been suspended. He was later cited for speeding and driving without insurance. In 2011 he was charged with a Class 4 felony of driving on a suspended license. Jackson argued that the statute denied him due process by preventing him from presenting evidence that he thought he had a valid license. The circuit court declared the statute unconstitutional as applied to him. The Illinois Supreme Court vacated, holding that the case can be resolved on nonconstitutional grounds and was not subject to direct appeal. The issue concerns proof of the elements of the offense, not constitutionality. The defendant is entitled to present evidence that he did possess a valid license, while the state may offer rebuttal that he misled authorities into reinstating his driving privilege by providing erroneous information. View "People v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Citizens, unhappy with how public education is funded in Illinois, sought a declaratory judgment, alleging that the funding system requires taxpayers in school districts with low property values to pay property taxes to fund local public schools at a higher rate than similarly situated taxpayers in school districts with higher property values, in violation of the equal protection clause of the Illinois Constitution. The circuit court dismissed; the appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the complaint was properly dismissed for lack of standing. The funding statute is not a taxing statute; plaintiffs failed to establish that the inequalities alleged are a direct result of the enforcement of the education funding statute or are fairly traceable to defendants’ actions. It is entirely within the discretion of the school districts to determine the actual rate of local property taxes, and the funding statute does not require school districts to tax at a certain rate. Although a district might decide that more local property tax revenues are required in order to provide students with a sufficient education, that decision is left to the school district and is not compelled or required by the educational funding statute. View "Carr v. Koch" on Justia Law