Daniel P. Ward

The case involved Jimmy Ray Pitsonbarger, who was convicted in a bench trial of two counts of intentional first-degree murder and four counts of felony murder arising from the shooting deaths of Claude and Alta Brown during a burglary and home invasion in Peoria County. A jury found him eligible for the death penalty based on multiple murders and murders committed in the course of a felony, and after weighing aggravating and mitigating evidence determined that no mitigating factors precluded a death sentence, which the trial court imposed. On direct appeal, the defendant raised numerous challenges to the guilt phase, jury selection, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions on mitigating factors and mercy, the admission of unadjudicated conduct, and the constitutionality of the Illinois death penalty statute. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the intentional murder convictions and death sentence, holding that the evidence supported the verdicts, most claims were waived or foreclosed by precedent, and the statute was constitutional, while vacating the four felony-murder convictions because only two homicides occurred. The court rejected arguments that the burden-of-proof instructions or other procedures rendered the sentencing hearing unfair.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Primitivo Rivera, who was convicted in Cook County circuit court of possessing a stolen motor vehicle after he drove a car on a dealership lot without the owner's permission on November 19, 1985; he was stopped when the car hit a security cable at the lot entrance. The appellate court reversed the conviction, ruling that the defendant lacked exclusive control over the vehicle and had not removed it from the premises as required for theft. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision and reinstated the conviction, holding that the defendant exercised unauthorized control by starting and driving the car, which severed the owner's possession for an appreciable time even though the car remained on the lot. The court reasoned that under the Illinois Vehicle Code and theft statutes, a completed taking occurs when the offender obtains control without permission, regardless of whether the property is removed from the owner's premises or briefly possessed.

criminal lawproperty

In this case, Robin Wayne Owens, who had been convicted of armed robbery and murder and sentenced to death, appealed the dismissal of his post-conviction petition. He claimed that the trial court should have held a fitness hearing to assess his ability to assist post-conviction counsel due to mental health issues, that no such hearing was authorized under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act or related statutes, and that his appointed post-conviction counsel failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 651(c) by not adequately supporting claims of ineffective trial counsel. The court held that the statutes do not require or permit fitness hearings in post-conviction proceedings to determine competence to assist counsel or fitness for execution when no date is set, and that due process and other constitutional claims did not mandate such hearings. It further found that post-conviction counsel had sufficiently consulted with the petitioner, examined the record, and presented evidence at the evidentiary hearing, satisfying Rule 651(c). The court vacated the circuit court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In Meerbrey v. Marshall Field & Co., an employee sued his employer and a co-employee security guard for false imprisonment, false arrest, and malicious prosecution stemming from two workplace incidents involving questioning about theft and a later arrest for trespass when the employee sought his paycheck. The trial court dismissed the claims against the employer under the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act and dismissed some counts against the co-employee for insufficient facts; the appellate court affirmed the employer’s dismissal and part of the co-employee dismissal but reversed on others. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Act bars common-law tort suits against the employer even for intentional conduct by a co-employee acting within the scope of employment, that such suits may proceed against the co-employee individually, and that the complaint’s allegations of unlawful restraint without probable cause were sufficient to state claims for false imprisonment and false arrest.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved defendant Ronald Janis, who was charged with possession of a stolen motor vehicle and possession of a vehicle with its identification number removed. Prior to trial, he moved to suppress evidence obtained when police entered a gravel area behind his plumbing business without a warrant, arguing he had a reasonable expectation of privacy there; the trial court denied the motion, finding no such expectation, and he was convicted. The appellate court reversed the convictions, but the Illinois Supreme Court held that the gravel area was not within the curtilage of the home and thus not automatically protected, while also determining that the record was insufficient to decide whether the defendant had manifested a subjective expectation of privacy that society would recognize as reasonable. The court vacated both lower judgments and remanded for continuation of the suppression hearing with opportunity for additional evidence, after which the trial court could either suppress the evidence and grant a new trial or reinstate the convictions.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

In this criminal case, defendant Randy Mink was convicted by a jury in Lake County of unlawful possession and delivery of cocaine based on an undercover transaction. After the verdict, the trial judge granted a new trial on grounds that the State had failed to prove venue, but a different judge later reconsidered the order, vacated the new-trial grant, and reinstated the convictions and sentence. The appellate court reversed, holding that the new-trial order was effectively an acquittal and that double-jeopardy principles barred reconsideration. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the convictions, reasoning that the order was entered after the jury had already returned its verdict, so vacating it simply reinstated the existing guilty verdict without exposing the defendant to a second trial or further factual proceedings on the elements of the offense.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a constitutional challenge by Chicago public school principals, a subdistrict superintendent, and registered voters/taxpayers to the 1988 Chicago School Reform Act, which decentralized governance by creating elected local school councils and replaced tenure for principals and superintendents with renewable four-year contracts. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled key provisions of the Act unconstitutional. It reasoned that the Act's voting scheme for local school councils violated equal protection under the state and federal constitutions by denying equal voting weight to large portions of the electorate, as the councils exercised general governmental powers; it further held that eliminating tenure impaired vested contract rights and deprived the administrators of property without due process.

electionscivil rightslabor & employment

In People v. Woolsey, the defendant was indicted for murder and other offenses, demanded a speedy trial, and later moved to dismiss the charges on speedy-trial grounds after the State nol-prossed the original indictment due to a defect and refiled the charges by information. The trial court granted the State's subsequent motion for nolle prosequi without first ruling on the defendant's motion, and the appellate court dismissed the defendant's appeal on the basis that the order was not final and appealable. The Illinois Supreme Court held that entry of a nolle prosequi is not a final, appealable order because it does not terminate the litigation on the merits. However, the court used its supervisory authority to vacate the circuit court's order and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the speedy-trial motion, reasoning that the trial court should have resolved the potentially dispositive defense motion before permitting the State to nol-pros the charges.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Hayes, the defendant was convicted by a jury of murder and six counts of armed robbery arising from an armed robbery at a church parking lot in which one victim was killed, and the trial judge imposed a death sentence after a bench sentencing hearing. On direct appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court considered the defendant's numerous claims of error at the pretrial, trial, and sentencing stages. The court affirmed the murder and armed robbery convictions as well as the concurrent 30-year sentences for the armed robberies. It vacated the death sentence, however, because the sentencing hearing had included victim impact evidence and testimony predicting the defendant's future dangerousness, both of which were held improper under then-controlling precedent, and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Dennis Holveck, who was charged with multiple counts of deviate sexual assault, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and unlawful restraint stemming from two separate incidents in which he allegedly assaulted young children. The trial court denied his motion to quash the arrest and suppress evidence obtained after police stopped his car without probable cause, transported him to the station, and elicited incriminating statements following Miranda warnings. The appellate court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed that judgment, holding that the initial stop and subsequent detention constituted an illegal arrest without probable cause, rendering the statements inadmissible as fruit of the unlawful seizure. The court also addressed evidentiary issues, upholding the admission of a prior out-of-court identification under a statute allowing such evidence and finding that certain testimony about a children's safety program did not invade the jury's role.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs who sought to enjoin a church from violating a local zoning ordinance but lost after a bench trial in the circuit court. After the trial court entered judgment against them, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal while a motion for attorney fees as sanctions under section 2-611 remained pending; the trial court later denied that motion. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the notice of appeal was premature and ineffective, so the appellate court properly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court reasoned that, under the amended section 2-611 and Supreme Court Rule 303(a), a sanctions motion is part of the underlying civil action rather than a separate claim, meaning the judgment on the main claim is not appealable until the sanctions motion is resolved absent a Rule 304(a) finding of no just reason for delay.

procedure

The case concerned whether the mandatory retirement of Illinois Secretary of State investigators at age 60 under section 2-115 of the Vehicle Code violated the age discrimination prohibitions in the Human Rights Act. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the Human Rights Act controls and that the mandatory retirement provision is invalid. The court reasoned that when two statutes conflict, the later-enacted one prevails as the most recent expression of legislative intent, and that the Human Rights Act is the more specific statute on the issue of age discrimination in employment. The court further noted that the statutes could not be harmonized as an exception because the legislature did not expressly indicate that intent. The decision reversed the appellate court and affirmed the circuit court's ruling in favor of the investigators and the Human Rights Commission.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved indictments against Capitol News, Inc. and related defendants in McLean County for allegedly selling or delivering obscene materials in violation of the Illinois obscenity statute. The circuit court dismissed the indictments after finding that an affirmative defense provision using the phrase 'scientific or other special justification' was unconstitutionally vague and not severable from the rest of the statute. On appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court first addressed procedural issues regarding the timeliness of the State's notice of appeal, which it accepted due to excusable clerical error under Supreme Court Rule 606(c). The court then examined the indictments themselves and concluded they were void for duplicity because they charged the defendants in the disjunctive with the disparate acts of selling or delivering obscene material. Accordingly, the court reversed the circuit court's judgments and remanded the causes.

criminal lawfree speech

This case involved an employee who suffered a back injury while working as a turbine operator and sought temporary total disability benefits under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act after his employer stopped payments. An arbitrator and the Industrial Commission awarded ongoing TTD benefits through January 1986 along with certain penalties, finding the injury was work-related and the condition had not stabilized, despite the employee completing a locksmithing course. The circuit court confirmed the award, but the appellate court reversed in part, limiting benefits to the period before the course ended. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the full award of benefits and penalties, holding that the employee's disabling condition remained unstable and that the employer failed to show suitable employment was available, shifting the burden after the employee demonstrated his limitations and lack of job prospects.

labor & employment

The case concerned whether an individual auto liability policy issued to Gary Miller covered injuries from a 1984 accident in which Miller drove his employer La Salle County Asphalt's pickup truck to a personal golf outing, colliding with another vehicle and killing one passenger while injuring others. The trial court granted declaratory judgment for the injured parties, finding coverage because the truck was not furnished for Miller's regular use despite the unauthorized personal trip. The appellate court reversed, but the Illinois Supreme Court reversed that decision and affirmed the trial court, holding that the policy's "drive other cars" exclusion for vehicles furnished for regular use did not apply. The court reasoned that Miller was authorized to use the truck only for business purposes, his personal use was isolated and unauthorized, and the exclusion targets frequent or habitual use for which no extra premium was paid.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Schultz v. Gotlund, plaintiffs sued for personal injuries after Michael Schultz was struck by a car, following treatment at hospitals paid for under a group medical plan provided by his wife's employer, Loretto Hospital. Loretto petitioned to intervene in the suit, claiming an equitable or common-law right of subrogation to recover the medical expenses it had paid from any settlement, even though the plan contained no express subrogation clause. The trial court denied intervention, but the appellate court reversed and ordered a determination of the medical-expense portion of the settlement. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the trial court, holding that no equitable or common-law right of subrogation exists for hospital or medical-expense benefits in the absence of an express contractual provision, as traditional equitable principles do not support such recovery in personal-insurance contexts and courts have consistently rejected implied subrogation in this area.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

This case involved an election contest filed by Penny Pullen challenging Rosemary Mulligan's certification as the Republican nominee for state representative in the March 1990 primary for Illinois' 55th District, where Mulligan initially led by 31 votes. Pullen filed her petition 10 days after the State Board of Elections' canvass, prompting disputes over timeliness under the Election Code and the validity of punch-card ballots with partially detached chads. The trial court found the petition timely, conducted a recount that resulted in a tie, and ordered a coin-flip lottery won by Mulligan, but the Illinois Supreme Court reversed in part after reviewing ballots and statutory requirements. The court held that the petition was timely because the State Board made the final canvass, and that voter intent on ballots should be assessed by examining perforations rather than requiring fully removed chads for machine readability. Adjusting the tallies accordingly, the court determined Pullen received 7,392 votes to Mulligan's 7,386 and declared Pullen the nominee.

electionsprocedure

In this case, Emily Sutton petitioned the circuit court to modify the maintenance payments set in a 1983 judgment of legal separation from her husband Robert, claiming changed circumstances made the payments insufficient. The trial court dismissed the petition based on a clause in their separation agreement stating that its terms could not be changed without both parties' consent, but the appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, holding that because the agreement was part of a legal separation rather than a dissolution of marriage, section 502(f) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act—which allows parties to preclude judicial modification—did not apply. As a result, the statutory right to seek modification of maintenance upon a showing of substantial change in circumstances under section 510(a) remained available, and the case was remanded for that determination.

family law

The case involved a minor who suffered severe injuries from a theophylline overdose after receiving an adult-dose aminophylline suppository manufactured by Wyeth, along with other medications, while hospitalized for respiratory issues. The parents sued Wyeth on negligence, strict liability, and willful misconduct claims alleging inadequate warnings and instructions, and a jury awarded substantial compensatory and punitive damages. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the judgments against Wyeth and remanded for a new trial, holding that evidence of alleged FDA regulation violations was improperly admitted because the regulations concerned efficacy rather than safety and lacked any causal link to the injury. The court also found that the adequacy of Wyeth's warnings and their role in proximate cause required retrial, while other claims of error were not reached.

torts & liabilityhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the armed robbery conviction of defendant Michael E. Herrett following a jury trial in St. Clair County, where he was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting claims of error from the prosecution's comments during closing arguments regarding the defendant's decision not to testify. The majority reasoned that any potential impropriety in those remarks did not rise to plain error or require reversal under the circumstances, given the overall strength of the evidence including the victim's partial identification and the defendant's presence with the co-perpetrator and stolen items shortly after the crime. A dissent contended that the comments violated the Fifth Amendment and were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure