Friday Feature plus Some Law!

Laura with the team

It’s been a hectic week here at LauraLaw. Tim spent his free time at the batting cages, where he learned that he has the coordination of a toddler. Michael immersed himself in the new Lady Gaga/Tony Bennett CD, “Cheek to Cheek” and recommends we all do the same. Kevin was home sick for two days with ~~Ebola~~ a cold and Maddy’s daughter had her first week of school. Also, Laura’s trip to Florida was delayed for a day due to the mess at O’Hare. And yet, we still manage to dissect and interpret the ever-more-interesting world of criminal law.

People v. Rizzo

Julie’s Law, a new statute that we have blogged about in the past, was held unconstitutional by a Cook County Circuit Court Judge. Remember that means while the case is persuasive authority you can cite to a Judge, it is not precedential authority as of yet.

We bring our children to work!

Julie’s Law is an enhancement to the Reckless Driving Statute which applies to those who drive 26 miles an hour or more over the speed limit. Traditionally, driving more than 26 miles an hour over the legal limit was just another traffic citation, but Julie’s Law made it a Misdemeanor Criminal Offense. In People v. Rizzo, a circuit court judge held that first time offenders who speed in excess of 26 miles per hour over the speed limit must be eligible for supervision. Making first time speeders ineligible for supervision violates the Constitutional prohibition on Cruel and Unusual punishment. The decision does not invalidate the rest of the law, but requires that first time speeders be eligible for probation.

______

Amnesia of an event alone will not make a person unfit to stand trial, but it goes a long way.People v. Stahl, 2014 IL 115804

Laura’s team

People v. Stahl is a recently decided case that came to the Illinois Supreme Court through the Fifth District. According to the State, the Defendant in Stahl broke into his estranged wife’s house with a gun, and threatened to kill both her and himself. However, before police arrived at the scene, Stahl shot himself in the face. Stahl was later charged with home invasion and aggravated unlawful restraint, but the trial court found him unfit to stand trial. Following a civil commitment with the Department of Human Services(DHS), Stahl was remanded back to the trial court for a second fitness hearing. Although DHS had determined that Stahl was fit to stand trial, the trial court found that he was still unable to assist in his own defense. Stahl was still suffering from amnesia as to the day in question, as well as considerable short term amnesia that made it difficult to converse with his attorney.

The State appealed the ruling, and both the Appellate Court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, but for different reasons. The Appellate Court held that Stahl’s amnesia as to the day in question, by itself, was enough to render him incapable of assisting his own defense. The Supreme Court rejected this line of reasoning, but still affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Laura’s team

Amnesia of the event alone, the Supreme Court held, is not enough to render a Defendant unfit to stand trial. However, the fact that Stahl was also suffering from considerable short term memory loss can also be taken into account. Thus, the Supreme Court held that the trial court’s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Our last featured case I learned about because I subscribe to attorney Samuel Partida’s excellent blogs and podcasts. His analysis of People v. Williams, 2014 Il. App. 3d. 120824 (August 13, 2014) is highly educational and insightful. You can read it at IllinoisCaseLaw.com and/or listen to his podcast at http://illinoiscaselaw.com/plea-bargaining-a-drug-case/#more-877. Basically this case is really noteworthy because for the first time, the Court held that the statutory proviso that an offender charged with a drug case who has any prior drug conviction within the last ten years could be sentenced to an extended term had to give way to the criminal sentencing statutory scheme which provides that in order for an extended term to be possible, an offender must be getting sentenced on a class 2 drug conviction and have a prior class 2 drug conviction in his background.

Laura’s team

Finally, we had to include a picture of Maddy with the rest of team engaging in her favorite activity!

If you have any questions regarding the cases we discussed in this blog, please fell free to contact us at LauraLaw.net

Law Offices of Laura J. Morask, LLC

30+ Years Criminal Law Experience

Leave a Reply