When conducting a section 115 10 hearing, the court examines the totality of the circumstances surrounding the hearsay statements, including the following: (1) the childs spontaneity and consistent repetition of the incident, (2) the childs mental state, (3) use of *266terminology unexpected of a child of similar age, and (4) the lack of motive to fabricate. Sharp, 391 Ill. App. After the arrest, Jason spent some hours locked in a cell. Luckey testified he wants a child he is interviewing to feel comfortable and not intimidated so the child can tell him what happened. Augustina, who worked many evenings, often asked her friend, Shelley Lara, to look after her two children. He gave a confession, which was admitted into evidence, and the girl gave [12] The Act provided that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction[fn 4] over certain Indian-on-Indian crimes[fn 5] when the crimes were committed in "Indian country. Jason signed a statement about the incident later that day. 81-1859. Defendant argues *265this could not have been the legislatures intent when it provided a witness must testify at the proceedings for the prior statement to be admissible. issues. 1st Dist. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. CliffsNotes study guides are written by real teachers and professors, so no matter what you're studying, CliffsNotes can ease your homework headaches and help you score high on exams. Kathleen testified R.K. told her about the allegations against defendant in the car when she and R.K. were alone. 's out-of-court statements; (2) the court failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 431(b) concerning admonitions to jurors; (3) the evidence proved the corpus delicti only for ACSA, and not for PCSA; (4) the trial court should have instructed the jury in accord with the requirements of section 11510(c) of the Code; (5) the trial court should have instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of ACSA; and (6) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. According to defendant, R.K. testified defendant did not engage in the activity described in her recorded interview. Pellentesque dapibus efficitur laoreet. The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, PlaintiffAppellee, [408 Ill.App.3d 733] A jury found the defendant, Jason Lara, guilty of two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault (PCSA) for inserting his finger into the vagina of an eight-year-old girl, J.O. When she came back, Jason again put his hand on her vagina. [6] The war between the tribes continued until at least the 1850s. 3d 786, 791, 780 N.E.2d 807, 811 (2002), affd, 215 Ill. 2d 194, 830 N.E.2d 484 (2005). Upload your study docs or become a Instead, J.O. School Ivy Tech Community College, Indianapolis Course Title CRIM 211 Uploaded By BailiffPorpoise1040 Pages 1 [46] Judge Hansen dissented, believing that the tribe drew its authority to try Lara from the federal government. A doctor testified that Jason suffered from epilepsy, and at the time of the arrest, medications did not adequately control his condition. According to the written statement, he said that on the first occasion, while J.O. Defendant cannot challenge the statute on a basis that it could conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to another defendant. As for the alleged inconsistencies and contradictions, the jury obviously found her statements regarding the alleged conduct credible. J.O. The court noted defendant could have cross-examined the child on her descriptions of the drawings she made, her inability to remember her conversation with the DCFS investigator or the alleged incidents of abuse, and her claimed lack of knowledge regarding some of the pictures. She pushed his hand away and went back to sleep. A doctor testified that Jason suffered from epilepsy, and at the time of the arrest, medications did not adequately control his condition. As a result, defense counsel questioned the reliability of the videotaped interview. Full Document, what is a case briefing of Illinois v. Lara The case brief should contain the following elements, -Case citation -Facts of the case -Procedural History -Issue(s) -Rule(s)/Holding(s) -Rationale, create a case brief of Illinois v. Lara (Ill. App. He did not recall much about the statement he signed at the station. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled in Duro v. Reina that an Indian tribe did not have the authority to try an Indian criminally who was not a member of that tribe. Before trial, the prosecution filed a motion seeking to admit at trial testimony about the statements J.O. Luckey testified he did not believe R.K. had been coached prior to the interview. She pointed to her vagina. [80] He noted that the Indian Treaty Clause[81] did not specifically grant Congress the right to legislate, but that treaties made pursuant to the clause could grant Congress the authority to legislate in regards to treaty matters. 3d at 480, 912 N.E.2d at 291. other than Jasons own confession. 3d at 484, 912 N.E.2d at 294. We allow free access to up to 500 cases per person per day see ANS: The textbook defines criminal law as the body of rules and regulations that defines and specifies punishments for offenses of a public nature or for wrongs committed against the state or society. This case has been the subject of numerous law review articles since the decision was made. No. 3d at 484, 912 N.E.2d at 294. In June 2008, a grand jury indicted defendant, charging him with predatory criminal sexual assault for committing an act of sexual *260penetration on R.K. between July 13, 2007, and May 7, 2008. Neither the State nor defendant specifically asked R.K. whether defendant put his mouth or tongue on her vagina. 30, 2011) (nonprecedential supervisory order on denial of petition for leave to appeal)) directing this court to vacate our prior . Thus, the trial court did not err in denying defendants motion to reconsider its earlier ruling to admit the recorded interview. Lara pleaded guilty to the tribal charges, but claimed double jeopardy against the federal charges. M02 Discussion.docx - M02 Discussion - Illinois v. Lara Officer Luckey did not direct R.Ks answers in the interview. Nam lacinia pulvinar tortor nec facilisis. He could not make much sense of what the officers had tried to say to him. See Ill.S.Ct. Jason raises six separate arguments on appeal. Jason Lara V. State of Illinois Facts: Jason Lara was found guilty of 2 counts of predatory criminal sexual assault (PCSA) after inserting his fingers into the vagina of an eight-year-old. Basically means criminal law is what conducts criminal and violations of the criminal law as referred to as a crime. Castle doctrine, Stand Your Ground laws 9. The appellate court held that the rule of corpus delicti required the state to produce independent evidence of the elements of penetration (the girls descriptions did not), and that insufficient independent evidence was presented to support the convictions. Docket No. said that on two occasions about a month earlier, Jason had touched her private part.. In this case, we find the jurys decision to believe R.K.s statement regarding defendant licking her pee pee was reasonable. Jason signed a statement about the incident later that day. 2011), Your case brief should contain the following elements (and those elements should be separated into sections: Case citation Facts of the case Procedural History Issue (s) Rule (s)/Holding (s) Rationale Law Social Science Criminal Justice CRIMINAL JUSTICE 211 Comments (2) She said she had never seen defendant do anything inappropriate to R.K. whether his combined 18-year term for the two predatory criminal sexual abuse convictions All Documents are available in pdf format. [114] Souter believed that the only two ways that the tribes could regain their sovereignty would be for Congress to declare that they were independent of the United States, as it did with the Philippines, or for the Court to overturn the concept of a dependent domestic sovereign. said Jason, not Phillip, had touched her private part. Augustina called Shelley and the police. 's pants and touched her vagina. 4-08-0983. She testified most of the time, she did not leave the children alone with defendant. "[127], The Lakota, also known as Teton Sioux, consist of the Brul, Oglala, Sans Arc, Hunkpapa, Miniconjou, Sihasapa (or Blackfoot Sioux, not to be confused with the. In July 2008, a hearing was held on R.K.s out-of-court statement. to give the answers she gave, and therefore, the statements were sufficiently reliable for admission into evidence under section 11510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/11510(a), (b) (West 2008)). The State called R.K. as a witness. 2011) Case Brief. Luckey testified he had received specialized training in interviewing children alleged to be victims of sexual or physical abuse. Donec aliquet. [56] Olson noted that the legislative history of the Duro fix bill clearly indicated that Congress intended to restore, not delegate, authority to prosecute non-member Indians by a tribe. was alone with Phillip. 1-09-1326. The appellate court held that [67] Lara argued that since the tribe had no such inherent sovereignty, it could only prosecute a non-member Indian based upon federal sovereignty, which would make a subsequent Federal prosecution a violation of the prohibition of double jeopardy. Jason raises six separate arguments on appeal. Case Brief 1.docx - Brewer v. Williams 430 U.S. 387 1977 An attorney is not required to, and indeed should not, make an argument not well-grounded in fact or law. MEYERSCOUGH, EJ., and TURNER, J., concur. (b).) Defense counsel argued R.K. did not testify to the elements charged in this case. (b) Such testimony shall only be admitted if: (1) The court finds in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability; and, (A) testifies at the proceeding; * * * [and]. Defendant appeals, arguing (1) section 115 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115 10 (West 2008)) is unconstitutional; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to introduce RK.s videotaped statement pursuant to section 115 10 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/115 10 (West 2008)); (3) the State failed to establish defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and (4) defendants trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue RK.s testimony at trial made her unavailable as a witness and denied defendant his right to confront witnesses against him. The court also stated defendant could have emphasized the issue of the childs credibility to the jury. People v. Lara, No. 1-09-1326. - Illinois - Case Law - VLEX 885595696 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Augustina's sister brought J.O. Any inconsistencies between RK.s trial testimony and her recorded interview affect only the weight and not the admissibility of the recorded interview. Augustina's sister brought J.O. A three-judge panel of the Circuit Court[fn 12] affirmed the decision of the District Court, holding that the tribe derived its power from its own retained sovereignty that was separate from the sovereignty of the United States. woke up. He argues (1) the trial court should have excluded the testimony about J.O. [88] The decision in Duro was one of federal common law, and it is clear that Congress has the power to change that law. A statute is facially unconstitutional (in contrast to unconstitutional as applied to [a] defendant) only if one can think of no circumstance in which the statute would be constitutional. People v. Kitch, 392 Ill. App. The following morning, Augustina asked Cordero to talk to J.O. Defendant is correct that RK.s trial testimony alone was not sufficient to establish defendant placed his mouth on her vagina. 3d at 1081, 909 N.E.2d at 400. 's father. Do the two works give you similar or different perspectives on Mesopotam . Souter referenced prior cases dealing with sovereignty and jurisdiction, from the decision made in United States v. Kagama,[110] to the opinion made in South Dakota v. The child testified she made several drawings during her meetings with the DCFS investigator, some of which she identified *270during her testimony. Fusce dui lectus, congue vel laoreet ac, dictum vitae odio. Fusce dui lectus, congue vel laoreet ac, dictum vitae odio. The threshold issue we must decide is whether the trial court erred when it permitted Augustina, Cordero and Paraday to testify about J.O. Nam lacinia pulvinar tortor nec facilisis. 3d 1072, 909 N.E.2d 391 (2009). To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must establish (1) his counsels performance was so deficient the attorney was not functioning as counsel guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution, and (2) he was prejudiced by the deficient performance. Nam lacinia pulvinar tortor nec facilisis. 1-09-1326. Michael J. Pelletier, Deputy Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender (Megan E. Ledbetter, of counsel), for DefendantAppellant.Anita Alvarez, State's Attorney, State's Attorney of Cook County (Alan J. Spellberg, Ashley A. Romito, Jessica R. Ball, of counsel), for PlaintiffAppellee. R.K. testified she told her mother, while riding in the car with her, what defendant had done to R.K. Jason appealed his conviction, arguing that the State had failed to prove, the corpus delicti of the offense, because they had failed to present any evidence. In Justice Thomas's conclusion at the end of this case, he stated, "History points in both directions. View Advanced A.I. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 80 L. Ed. 322. United States Appellate Court of Illinois, 946 N.E.2d 516,349 Ill.Dec. 3d at 484, 912 N.E.2d at 294. Agustina P. had two children, J.O and C.A, who would often stay with Shelley Lara, , 2005, J.O told Cordero Jason had touched her inappropriately, and. said Jason, not Phillip, had touched her private part.. Augustina P. had two children, J.O. into a bedroom and asked her if Phillip had ever touched her in a way that made her uncomfortable. independent evidence as required by the rule of corpus delicti. Partly because of a conversation he had with J.O., he told Cordero about the sucking sounds he heard coming from a room where J.O. [57] The government argued that the limitation in Duro was a statutory limitation of the tribe's sovereignty, not a constitutional limit, and that Congress had the authority to remove that limitation. School University of North Carolina, Pembroke Course Title CRJ 3000 Uploaded By ConstableComputerWaterBuffalo2326 Pages 2 Ratings 100% (3) In the 1880s, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act, divesting tribes of criminal jurisdiction in regard to several felony crimes.
Examples Of Social Issues In Sport,
Adrienne Urrutia Wisenberg,
Articles I