stated defendant placed his mouth on her sex organ and licked inside her pee pee. A reasonable jury could properly have found RK.s statement credible. 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 Bookmarked 0 CRIM 211 M02 Discussion.docx Viewing now Bookmark it to view later. 720 ILCS 5/12 14.1(a)(1) (West 2006). Press escape to return to last selected case text. Defendant suggests R.K.s inability to pinpoint when the sex act occurred and certain inconsistencies rendered her statement unreliable. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. The jury was able to assess RK.s credibility because it was able to observe her demeanor in the video and on the witness stand and could consider any conflicts or inconsistencies in her testimony. She woke up and took her sister with her as she went to spend the rest of the night in Shelley's room. delicti. He did not interview R.K. or anyone else living at the residence. 's father. Kathleen testified R.K. told her about the allegations against defendant in the car when she and R.K. were alone. Want to read the entire page? Question (1) Is a police officer's good faith reliance on a third party's apparent authority to consent to a search a valid exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment? Case Situation: The defendant, Jason Lara was found guilty of 2 counts of predatory criminal sexual assault against an eight-year-old girl, J.O. Kato specifically asked whether Jason put his hand inside her, and J.O. than the defendants own self-incriminating statement. into a bedroom and asked her if Phillip had ever touched her in a way that made her uncomfortable. 2 Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties 105758, George Washington Kingsbury & George Martin Smith, 2 History of the Dakota Territory 11921196, Major Crimes Act of 1835, March 3, 1885, 23, Supreme Court Interpretation and Policymaking in American Indian Policy 176, Introduction to Tribal Legal Studies 159-60, Like a Loaded Weapon: The Rehnquist Court, Indian Rights, And the Legal History of Racism in America 154, Broken Landscape:Indians, Indian Tribes, and the Constitution: Indians, Indian Tribes, and the Constitution 251-52. [25], Billy Jo Lara was an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians located in northern North Dakota near the CanadaU.S. 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. In Kitch, this court recently adhered to its previous ruling in Reed and rejected the defendants contention section 115 10 is facially unconstitutional. The child testified she made several drawings during her meetings with the DCFS investigator, some of which she identified *270during her testimony. 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. of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 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. Augustina came into the bedroom to talk to J.O., and again J.O. specified that Jason's hand stayed outside her vagina in each incident. [97] Finally, Kennedy was concerned that the court did not address the question of the Equal Protection Clause. Augustina, Cordero and Paraday repeated the testimony they gave at the pretrial hearing. It reduced them to the lesser-included offenses of
[77] He noted that the intent of Congress was clear, not only based on the plain language of the statute, but also from its legislative history. Defense counsel argued to the jury the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt because R.K. testified defendant had never touched her with anything beside his hand. this rule required the State to produce independent evidence of the elements of penetration
Two middle school girls plotted to kill their teacher with poison.docx In addition, as the State points out in its brief, the confrontation clause only guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination; it does not guarantee effective cross-examination. That defense counsel chose not to cross-examine R.K. on these issues does not translate to a lack of opportunity to do so. View Breyer believed that the question the Court needed to answer was whether Congress had the authority to relax restrictions that had been imposed on an Indian tribe's inherent sovereignty. Which is also called penal law. [43] The Eighth Circuit's panel noted that in the Duro decision, the Supreme Court had observed that Congress could address the jurisdictional system, which Congress did. CITATION OF CASES DOES NOT INCLUDE . Since separate sovereign bodies had filed the charges, double jeopardy did not apply to Lara's case. 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. In Garcia-Cordova, the question was whether the child was available for cross-examination during defendants trial. 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. JUSTICE NEVILLE delivered the judgment of . our. This Cook County defendant was charged with committing two counts of predatory
reducing them to the lesser-included offense of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and remanding the cause for resentencing. explained that when she and her sister slept at Shelley's home, they would sleep on the floor next to the bed in the living room where Jason slept. On appeal, Jason argues that the State failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offense, because the State failed to present any evidence corroborating Jason's confession that he put his finger inside J.O. [87] The earlier decisions in Duro, Wheeler, and Oliphant dealt with cases where Congress had restricted a tribe's inherent powers but pointed at nothing in the Constitution or established precedent that prohibits Congress from relaxing such restrictions. Refer to Figure 2. In In re Rolandis G., 232 Ill. 2d 13, 32-33, 902 N.E.2d 600, 611 (2008), our supreme court ruled a videotaped statement made by a child to a child advocate was testimonial in nature. 3d 467, 469, 727 N.E.2d 404, 406 (2000). When asked why she told her mom, R.K. responded, Because he was doing something wrong.. J.O. [93] The decision of the Eighth Circuit Court was reversed in the 72 decision. Kathleen called the Child Advocacy Center, which referred her to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and the police. Illinois v. Lara Case Brief.docx - Illinois v. Lara 2012 IL The videotaped interview and a transcript of the interview were admitted into evidence. 3d at 484, 912 N.E.2d at 294. Tribal court authority has been altered by the U.S. government for decades, affecting jurisdictional powers. Defendant was convicted of two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault on an eight-year-old girl, at his mothers home for babysitting, on two dates. m01 Case Briefing.docx - Jason Lara V. State of Illinois Luckey testified he had received specialized training in interviewing children alleged to be victims of sexual or physical abuse. The crimes covered were murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to commit murder, arson, burglary, and larceny. The appeal of Lara is automatic. R.K. described conduct with which a typical four- or five-year-old child would not and should not be familiar. [78], Breyer stated that the Indian Commerce Clause[79] of the United States Constitution granted Congress "plenary and exclusive" power to legislate in respect to the Indian tribes. [104] [408 Ill.App.3d 737] (3) * * * [T]he out of court statement was made * *, Request a trial to view additional results. People v. Lara Annotate this Case. Which of the following examples would most likely be used in a short report? A. However, as to R.K.s availability as a witness, the following exchange occurred: The court noted it had previously found the time, content, and circumstances of R.Ks recorded statement to be reliable. He gave a confession, which was admitted into evidence, and the girl gave
School University of North Carolina, Pembroke Course Title CRJ 3000 Uploaded By ConstableComputerWaterBuffalo2326 Pages 2 Ratings 100% (3) At the trial, J.O. A court must interpret a statute so as to uphold its constitutionality if reasonably possible. The doctor testified that epileptics often remain confused for hours after a seizure. [44] When Congress amended the ICRA, they were addressing a federal common law issue, not a constitutional issue, and were within their authority to recognize the sovereignty of the tribes. When asked how many times defendant had touched her bottom body, she said 100., When asked by the State, Did he touch you with anything else beside his hand, R.K. answered, No. She said she told defendant to quit it when he touched her. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. said Jason, not Phillip, had touched her private part. Augustina called Shelley and the police. As a result, we will not say the trial courts pretrial ruling was fanciful, arbitrary, or unreasonable. Indian country was defined as all reservation land, all dependent Indian communities, and all Indian allotments. Augustina P. had two children, J.O. [96] Kennedy states that is all that is needed to decide the case, but that the Court went further than was necessary when it decided that Congress had the power under the constitution to authorize tribes to prosecute non-member Indians. Augustina P. had two children, J.O. Pellentesque dapibus efficitur lao
sectetur
sectetur adipiscing elit. As we stated earlier, Luckey asked open-ended questions, to which R.K. responded. to Cordero's home, before school. People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 283, 818 N.E.2d 304, 310 (2004). Syllabus. Accordingly, we vacate Jason's convictions for PCSA, reduce Jason's convictions for PCSA to convictions for ACSA, and remand for sentencing on the ACSA convictions. He argues (1) the trial court should have excluded the testimony about J.O. As our supreme court has stated, it is for the fact finder to judge how flaws in part of the testimony affect the credibility of the whole as long as its judgment is reasonable in light of the record. [41] Senechal denied this motion, noting that Lara had shown no examples of other races not being prosecuted for like offenses. R.K. testified defendant would stand and look at her when he was not touching her. The judge also asked the jurors, in panels of four, whether they agreed with the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying defendants motion to reconsider its earlier ruling to admit the recorded interview. [23] This legislation became known as the "Duro fix",[24] and was based on tribal sovereignty rather than a federal delegation of power. Nam risus ante, dapibus a molestie consequat, ultrices ac magna. Court reverses both convictions of PCSA and relieves Lara of those charges. '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. [fn 9] Soon after, federal prosecutors charged Lara with assault on a federal officer[32] and a federal grand jury indicted him. Recognize attempt statutes and penalties 7. 3d at 483, 912 N.E.2d at 294. 112370. Mashal v. And In a Representative Capacity On Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, No. but his testimony at trial denied any inappropriate behavior. The defendant, Billy Jo Lara, was charged for acts that were criminal offenses under both the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe's laws and the federal United States Code. Nam lacinia pulvinar tortor nec facilisis. R.K. never specifically denied defendant placed his tongue or mouth on her vagina. 1st Dist. 10&11 quiz.docx 7 pages Judicial Opinion Assignement.docx 3 pages When asked by the State if defendant had touched her with any part of his body beside his hand, R.K. answered, No. However, a five-year-old child most likely would not equate oral sex with touching. [45] The panel then affirmed the trial court on the Petite claim. 3d at 1094, 909 N.E.2d at 409-10. 3d 786, 791, 780 N.E.2d 807, 811 (2002), affd, 215 Ill. 2d 194, 830 N.E.2d 484 (2005). Press Ctrl + / (Windows, Chrome OS) or + / (Mac) to jump to the Tools menu. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. Jason signed a statement about the incident later that day. Therefore, the case hinges on the tribes' inherent sovereignty, and based on precedent, the tribes possess that power. The Court held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns; therefore, separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.[2]. testified that for the first incident, while she slept, she felt Jason's hand inside her pants, touching her vagina. See People v. Sharp, 391 Ill. App. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing e
sectetur
sectetur adipiscing elit. "[105] Thomas further questioned the law[106] ending the practice of making treaties with the tribes, noting that this was the one clear constitutional provision that provides for dealing with other sovereigns. [408 Ill.App.3d 734] On February 11, 2005, Jason told Cordero that once, when Phillip A. came to visit, Jason heard sounds of licking and sucking coming from a room where Phillip A. and J.O. [6] The war between the tribes continued until at least the 1850s. [17], In 1990, the Supreme Court held in Duro v. Reina[18] that an Indian tribe did not have jurisdiction to try an Indian of another tribe. "[92] The decision allowed both courts to prosecute Lara. 1-09-1326. She testified defendant had to leave her house between 5:30 and 6 a.m. to get to work. inappropriately, and he never put his hand in her pants. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. The restitution consisted of $ 600 (or $ 50 in one source), eight ponies, and one blanket. said it was outside her vagina on both occasions. In Justice Thomas's conclusion at the end of this case, he stated, "History points in both directions. Get free summaries of new Supreme Court of Illinois opinions delivered to your inbox! When she came back, Jason again put his hand on her vagina. 3d at 480, 912 N.E.2d at 291. Touching for a five-year-old is done with fingers and hands. Officer Luckey testified he was a police officer with the City of Eureka and had been a police officer for 20 years. The judge admonished the venire about the principles that the jurors must presume the defendant's innocence, the State must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant has no duty to present any evidence, and the jurors must not hold against the defendant his exercise of his right not to testify. [89] Since the power exercised by the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe was that of inherent tribal sovereignty, double jeopardy did not attach. The defendant is Lara's son, who sleeps at her house. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. Welcome to the Caselaw Access Project! "[101] Thomas did not believe that Congress has the constitutional authority to set the "metes and bounds of tribal sovereignty. 1st Dist. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 2023 Course Hero, Inc. All rights reserved. Defendant was free to, and did, argue these inconsistencies to the jury. We will overturn a trial courts decision to allow the admission of evidence only when the record clearly demonstrates the decision was an abuse of discretion. A doctor testified that Jason suffered from epilepsy, and at the time of the arrest, medications did not adequately control his condition. Nam risus ante, dapibus a molestie consequat, ultrices ac magna. 1st Dist. Glaub observed Luckeys interview of R.K. Glaub testified there was no indication R.K. had *264been coached. slept, he put his finger into her vagina as far as his fingernail, and then J.O. Illinois v. Lafayette. Garcia-Cordova, 392 Ill. App. ACCEPT. An attorney is not required to, and indeed should not, make an argument not well-grounded in fact or law. [111] Souter stated that the decision in this case did not align with precedent established in previous cases. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. In December 2008, the trial court denied defendants posttrial motion, which alleged the trial court erred in admitting R.Ks videotaped statement. The victim in this case, R.K., took the stand and offered meaningful testimony. Shelley and Jason came to Cordero's home. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Are they all necessary to ensure justice? In this case, we find the jurys decision to believe R.K.s statement regarding defendant licking her pee pee was reasonable. [fn 2], Originally, crimes committed by Indians against Indians were not subject to federal or state jurisdiction, but were handled by tribal law. Lara was sentenced to 90 days in jail for the tribal offense. statements and also testified at trial. [fn 10][37] The Federal District Court, with Magistrate Judge Alice R. Senechal sitting by consent, denied the motions and Lara entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal. was already awake when he put his finger into her vagina, with the finger again entering as far as the fingernail. She testified most of the time, she did not leave the children alone with defendant. and C.A., who has a friend, Shelley Lara, that provides childcare often as she works evenings. After viewing the videotape, we do not find the trial court abused its discretion in finding the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability (725 ILCS 5/115 10(b)(1) (West 2006)). People v. Lara, No. 1-09-1326. - Illinois - Case Law - VLEX 885595696 However, when the State asked R.K. if she liked defendant, she said no because he did something wrong. At the time of the offense, R.K. was 5 years old (born September 16, 2002) and defendant was 25 years old. It is not the function of this court to second-guess the credibility determinations of the trier of fact unless we determine no reasonable jury could have come to that same conclusion. In addition, the record contains no possible motive for R.K. to fabricate these allegations. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed and the Supreme Court of Illinois denied leave to appeal. Submit 2 - Solomon Company sells lamps and other lighting fi 10. 1st Dist. In general, during any trial, an attorney does not want to ask a question if he does not know how the witness will answer. Donec aliquet. 2011) Your case brief should contain the following elements (and those elements should be separated into sections: Case citation, 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, Research and find Indiana's "Stand Your Ground" statute and correctly cite the code section and subsection(s) where it is located. M02 Discussion.docx - M02 Discussion - Illinois v. Lara Luckey testified he wants a child he is interviewing to feel comfortable and not intimidated so the child can tell him what happened. Further, an attorney surely does not want to elicit an answer that will implicate his client. Defendant argues section 115 10 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/115 10 (West 2006)) is unconstitutional because it fails to incorporate a blanket prohibition of testimonial statements where the defense has no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, and it improperly incorporates an evidentiary standard which has been specifically rejected by the United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 158 L. Ed. The court also stated defendant could have emphasized the issue of the childs credibility to the jury. were alone together. It appears this was a matter of strategy on the part of defense counsel. R.K. testified she considered defendant her friend. The following morning, Augustina asked Cordero to talk to J.O. Docket No. Jason testified that he never touched J.O. Cordero took J.O. 's pants and touched her vagina. 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. The second time J.O. CRIM 211 Midterm Study Guide.docx - Midterm Study Guide You can explore additional available newsletters here. whether his combined 18-year term for the two predatory criminal sexual abuse convictions
Nam lacinia pulvinar tortor nec facilisis. Defendants argument on this issue succeeds only if the trial court erred in admitting the videotaped statement. said, Yes, he has but it wasn't Phillip. Instead, J.O. [70] To subject Lara to a prosecution by a tribal court, which was not subject to the Bill of Rights,[fn 18] would deprive Lara of his rights as a United States citizen. "[116] Souter concluded that he would stand by the decisions made in Duro and Oliphant. issues. [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. We agree. 's father. made to Augustina, Cordero and Kato. [8] In 1872, the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of the Santee signed a treaty that resulted in their moving to the Spirit Lake Reservation. In August 2008, the trial court granted the States motion to admit R.Ks out-of-court statement, provided R.K. testified at trial. 's answers. How was this most difficult challenge affected by other demands and challenges that confronted the first, Over the last century, America has produced two dominant and nearly opposite myths of its early explorers: the noble, courageous bringer of light and civilization to the barbarous world; and (more. Defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the victim in this case, and she answered all of his questions. Carey Kato, a forensic interviewer working for the Children's Advocacy Center, interviewed J.O. As a result, defendant argues R.K. was unavailable as a witness. Reichert argued that an Indian tribe had no inherent sovereignty in regards to non-member Indians, but only the power that Congress decided to give the tribe, citing Duro, Wheeler, and Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe[fn 17][65] to support his argument. 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. Detective Linda Paraday, who watched Kato interview J.O., testified about that questioning and J.O. *262R.K. Jason raises six separate arguments on appeal. He received consecutive terms of 10 and 8 years. Defendant points out this court recently interpreted section 115 10 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/115 10 (West 2006)) to allow for the introduction of prior out-of-court statements when a witness takes the stand and answers no meaningful question on cross-examination. [fn 3], In response to Ex Parte Crow Dog, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act in 1885. and C.A. said Jason, not Phillip, had touched her private part.. Crow Dog was ordered released, having made restitution under tribal law to Spotted Tail's family. The video of the interview was admitted into evidence at the hearing as Peoples exhibit No. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence. [fn 16], Alexander F. Reichert was appointed by the Supreme Court to argue the case for Lara. Decided: June 28, 2010. Illinois v. McArthur Michigan v. Summers Payton v. New York U.S. v. Place II SEARCH a. Other related materials Criminal Law Week 4 Briefs.docx 3 notes 3d at 955, 909 N.E.2d at 978, quoting People v. Robertson, 312 Ill. App. Because the court found the child did not testify at trial and defendant had no prior opportunity for cross-examination, our supreme court held admission of the videotaped statement violated defendants right to confront his accuser. Lara had married a member of the Spirit Lake Santee tribe and had resided on the Spirit Lake Reservation with her and their children until he was banished from the reservation due to several serious misdemeanors. 3d 947, 909 N.E.2d 971 (2009); People v. Bryant, 391 Ill. App. Shifting Scales; Body Politic; Top Advocates Report; Site Feedback; Support Oyez & LII; LII Supreme Court Resources (Pen. In fact, Glaub stated R.K. said no one told her what to say. 's disclosures. The trial court found that [408 Ill.App.3d 735] the questions did not effectively coach J.O. The jurors were each provided a transcript of the videotaped statement while the videotape was played for the jury. 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)). Augustina began dating John Cordero after she separated from her husband, Phillip A., who was C.A. Nam lacinia pulvinar tortor nec facilisis. However, she testified he was alone with the children once or twice for approximately two hours when she went to the grocery store. [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. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. R.K. answered all of defense counsels questions. Here is a link to the audio instead. Further, Luckey testified he did not believe R.K. had been coached. Pellentesque dapibus efficitur laoreet.
sectetur adip
sectetur adipiscing elit. Augustina's sister brought J.O. CRIM 361 Chapter I (Question for Discussion).docx - Chapter This is understandable in light of her tender years and the passage of time. R.K. had her own bedroom on the first floor of the house. 408 Ill.App.3d 732946 N.E.2d 516349 Ill.Dec. Castle doctrine, Stand Your Ground laws 9. As part of our judgment, we grant the State its $50 statutory assessment against defendant as costs of this appeal. said, Yes, he has but it wasn't Phillip.. Nam lacinia pulvinar tortor nec facilisis. Breyer noted the many shifts in federal Indian policy, from removal to self-determination, the last of which substantially relaxed prior restrictions that Congress had placed on the tribes.