Criminal - Motion To Suppress/ Search And Seizure / Arrests
3rd Dist. People v. Bridgewater, No. 3-05-0897 (August 9, 2007) Will County (McDADE) Reversed and remanded
Trial court erred when it granted defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of search of his vehicle incident to his arrest for resisting a police officer. Because defendant's arrest, after he refused to cooperate with police officer's attempt to issue citation for speeding by entering store and refusing officer's demand that he go outside and provide officer with his driver's license, was proper, police officers had authority to search his vehicle pursuant to U.S.S,Ct.'s opinions in Thornton and Atwater.

Criminal - Fines/ Credit For Presentence Detention
1st Dist. People v. Jones, No. 1-05-0020 (August 10, 2007) 5th div. (O'MARA FROSSARD) Affirmed as modified
Defendant, who was sentenced to 5 yrs. for possession of controlled substance, was entitled to per day credit for time spent in detention against Spinal Cord Injury Fund fine, controlled substance assessment, Trauma Center Fund charge, and traffic and criminal conviction surcharge. Further, defendant should not have been assessed Violent Crime Victims Assistance Fund deposit, because it was not only fine imposed.

Criminal - Hearsay/ One Act One Crime / Sentencing
1st Dist. People v. Griffin, No. 1-05-2481 (August 17, 2007) 3rd div. (GREIMAN) Affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded
Defendant, who was convicted of murder, armed robbery and aggravated kidnapping, was not subjected to plain error when trial court admitted into evidence a consensual overhear tape, as non hearsay evidence for the purpose of showing the effect of speaker's statements on defendant. Further, because jury entered general verdict of first degree murder, which could include intentional murder, armed robbery conviction is not necessarily lesser included offense. However, trial court erred when it entered concurrent, rather than consecutive sentence required by Section 5-4-8(a)(1) of Code of Corrections.

Criminal - Ineffectiveness Of Counsel/ Search And Seizure / Presentence credit
1st Dist. People v. Morrison, No. 1-04-3545 (August 14, 2007) 3rd div. (SOUTH) Affirmed as modified
Defendant was not deprived effective assistance of counsel by virtue of his attorney's failure to file motion to quash arrest and suppress bottle of crack cocaine seized from his person; because police officer was justified in stopping defendant, whom he saw in disturbance with another man, asking for his name, running it through system, and arresting him when he learned that there was outstanding warrant. However, trial court erred when it failed to give him credit against drug assessment charge and criminal surcharge for time spent in pretrial detention; and should not have assessed the Violent Crime Victims Fund charge, it not being only fine imposed.,

Criminal - Right To Counsel/ Identification
1st Dist. People v. Howard, No. 1-05-1849 (August 17, 2007) 5th div. (GALLAGHER) Affirmed
Identification of defendant by victims of armed robbery and aggravated discharge of a firearm was not unreasonably suggestive, considering totality of the circumstances, even though he was handcuffed at a police show up; because police had just apprehended defendant immediately after receiving report of crime. Further, it was not an abuse of discretion for trial court to allow retained attorney to withdraw over defendant's objection even though it meant that trial was delayed by eight months. There was clear strain between defendant and his attorney; and trial court made most equitable decision possible.

- Right Of Confrontation/ Law Of The Case / Hearsay
1st Dist. People v. Sutton, No. 1-06-0475 (August 14, 2007) 2nd div. (HALL) Affirmed in part reversed in part, remanded
Trial court correctly applied mandate from prior reversal on appeal of defendant's conviction for murder and rape, and excluded testimony of witness based on hypnotically induced recollection; and law of the case precludes reconsideration, because previous opinion is not clearly erroneous. However, trial court erred when it excluded pre hypnotic statement given by victim to police when they arrived on scene. Because primary purpose of interrogation was to ascertain whether there was an ongoing emergency, the statements were not testimonial in nature and qualified as spontaneous declaration. Further, hypnosis did not render the witness unavailable at trial for purposes of confrontation clause

Criminal - Robbery/ Impeachment / Motions In Limine
4th Dist. People v. DeBerry, No. 4-06-0244 (August 13, 2007) Macon County (McCULLOUGH) (COOK, dissent) Affirmed
Evidence that defendant held victim while his companion forcibly took cell phone and money from victim's pocket is sufficient to convict defendant of robbery; even though defendant testified that he was restraining victim only because he had swung at defendant's companion. Further, trial court did not deprive defendant of his right to testify when it refused to rule on motion in limine seeking to bar introduction of defendant's criminal convictions for impeachment until after defendant made decision to testify.

Criminal - Search And Seizure/ D U I / Arrests
5th Dist. People v. Damian, No. 5-06-0026 (August 14, 2007) Effingham County (STEWART) Reversed and remanded
Trial court erred when it granted defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized upon search of defendant's vehicle after his arrest for driving under the influence of drugs. Trooper was acting in community caretaking role when he approached defendant at rest stop after report that motorist had run off interstate onto ditch. Defendant's admission that he had run off road in the middle of the afternoon, coupled with locking keys in his car and troopers observation of his slurred speech, lethargic demeanor, unbalanced movements, and large amount of rolling papers visible from outside car, gave trooper probable cause to arrest defendant for driving under the influence of drugs; and search vehicle incident to arrest..

Criminal - Shackling Of Defendant/ Identification
3rd Dist. People v. Gon'a, No. 3-04-0938 (August 13, 2007) Will County (CARTER) (McDADE, special concurrence, partial dissent) Affirmed
Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's post trial motion claiming that he was deprived due process, in his trial for aggravated discharge of a firearm and weapons charges, when defendant was required to wear stun belt during jury trial without court having first conducted Boose hearing. When defendant raised the issue in his motion, the trial court properly conducted retrospective hearing and cited at least 5 valid reasons for requiring defendant to wear stun belt and noted that defendant did not seem impaired in his ability to assist his counsel with the trial. Further, it was not plain error for trial court to give IPI Criminal 3.15 with 'or' instead of 'and' between factors to use when assessing evidence of identification; because evidence of defendant's identity was not closely balanced

Civil - Administrative Review/ Driving Privileges / Drivers License Compact
4th Dist. Gruchow v. White, No. 4-06-0898 (August 22, 2007) Sangamon County (KNECHT) (COOK, special concurrence) Reversed
Trial court erred when it reversed refusal by Secretary of State to issue clearance letter to petitioner, who had two DUI convictions in Illinois, and then moved to South Carolina, where he received two more DUI convictions. Section 6-704 of MVC, incorporating Drivers License Compact, does not apply because petitioner's driver's license was revoked by Illinois; and Section 6-208 imposes lifetime ban on obtaining driving privileges, applying to both drivers license and driving privileges.

Criminal - Extraterritorial Arrests/ Search And Seizure / Controlled Substances
5th Dist. People v. Erby, No. 5-06-0217 (August 24, 2007) Williamson County (GOLDENHERSH) Affirmed
Because, police officer, who was outside of his authorized territory, did not use powers of his office when he went up to defendant's stopped car to check on driver, smelled anhydrous ammonia, saw components of a mobile meth lab by looking in windows, and called State Police to send meth response team, trial court properly refused to suppress evidence seized from defendant's vehicle. Although he used knowledge from his training and experience as police officer, he did not exceed his authority when he made citizen arrest of defendant.