Cases Pending, co-chaired by Gretchen Harris Sperry (left) and Catherine Basque Weiler, has been updated to discuss the Illinois Supreme Court's November Term, which begins today, November
13, 2017, with oral arguments scheduled
for November 14-16, 2017. A total
of 7 cases will be heard – 2 criminal and 5 civil. The
following criminal cases are scheduled for argument this Term:
People v. Robert Carey, No. 121371: November 14
People v. Leshawn Coats, No. 121926: November 14
Below is a summary for one criminal case, People
v. Robert Carey. Summaries for this case and others pending with the
Illinois Supreme Court can be found in our Cases Pending publication,
accessible to ALA members on the ALA's website.
People v. Robert Carey
Defendant Robert Carey
was charged with multiple offenses, including felony murder while committing
attempted armed robbery (count I) and attempted armed robbery with a
firearm (count II). The appellate court agreed with defendant that the
indictment's description of count I was deficient. The indictment
alleged that the murder occurred during commission of attempted armed
robbery, listed the date and location of the offense, provided the
statutory citation for felony murder, and named the accused and the victim. But the
court found the count deficient because it did not specify which of two forms
of attempt armed robbery was alleged, i.e., attempted armed robbery with a
firearm or attempted armed robbery with a dangerous weapon other than a
firearm.
Before the Illinois Supreme Court, the State argues for
reversal on multiple bases. First, count I fully informed Carey of the felony
murder charge in compliance with longstanding precedent describing sufficiency
of indictments. Second, even if count I were deficient, review of the
indictment as a whole sufficiently informed Carey of the charge given
that count II specifies attempted armed robbery with a firearm. Third,
Carey cannot establish prejudice because the detail of the weapon used was
irrelevant to his theory of the case. Finally, even if the indictment were
deficient, the appropriate remedy should have been to treat the predicate
felony for felony murder as attempted robbery and affirm the conviction rather
than to vacate the felony murder conviction.
In response, Carey asserts that the appellate court's
opinion was correct for several reasons. First, during the trial, the State
argued that the predicate felony was committed on both bases, i.e., with a
firearm and with a dangerous weapon other than a firearm. Second, count I
cannot be interpreted in light of count II because the latter was nolle prossed
before trial. In the alternative, on cross-appeal, Carey argues that the State
failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the State failed
to prove that the firearm element given that the parties agreed that the gun
Carey carried was inoperable.
The following civil cases are scheduled for
argument this Term:
People v. Robert Carey, No. 121371: November 14
In
re N.G.,
Nos. 121939, 121961 (cons.): November 14
People
ex rel. Matthew Hartrich v. 2010 Harley-Davidson, No. 121636: November
15
Antonicelli
v. Rodriguez,
No. 121943: November 15
The
Bank of New York Mellon v. Laskowski, No. 121995: November 15
Jenner
v. Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, No. 121293: November
16
Below is a summary for one civil case, Antonicelli v.
Rodriguez.
Antonicelli
v. Rodriguez
At
issue is whether a counterclaim alleging that a defendant is an intentional
tortfeasor precludes a finding that the defendant has entered a good faith
settlement shielding him from further liability. The plaintiff was severely
injured when Defendant Daniel Rodriguez, who was driving under the influence of
cocaine, struck the plaintiff’s vehicle, which then collided with a semi-truck.
The plaintiff sued Rodriguez and two co-defendants—the truck driver and his
employer—alleging that they were negligent. The co-defendants filed a
counterclaim for contribution, alleging that Rodriguez’s acts were intentional
and that damages should be apportioned accordingly. Rodriguez and the plaintiff
settled. The circuit court entered a finding that the settlement was made in
good faith, then dismissed both the plaintiff’s claims against Rodriguez and
the co-defendants’ counterclaims. The circuit court affirmed the good faith
finding.
Before
the Illinois Supreme Court, the co-defendants argue that Section 2-1117 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1117), which protects minimally
responsible defendants from paying entire damage awards, requires a trial court
to consider the respective fault of the defendants before making a finding of
good faith. The co-defendants further argue that deciding whether to approve a
settlement, courts should look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding
the settlement, including, in this case, the uncontroverted evidence that
Rodriguez acted intentionally. In response, Rodriguez argues that settling
intentional tortfeasors may be discharged from liability under the Act, that
the appellate court’s decision furthers the Act’s purpose in promoting
settlements, and that Section 2-1117 does not affect a defendant’s ability to
settle under the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act (740 ILCS 100/2).
DISCLAIMER: The Appellate Lawyers Association does not provide legal services or legal advice. Discussions of legal principles and authority, including, but not limited to, constitutional provisions, statutes, legislative enactments, court rules, case law, and common-law doctrines are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice.
