Appellate Court of the State of Illinois, Fifth District Oral Arguments
October 26, 2011
ORAL ARGUMENT SETTING
SIU SCHOOL OF LAW
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2011
5-10-0359 - Isom v. Barham Saline County
This is a wrongful death and survival action arising from a single-vehicle accident that occurred on Illinois Route 147 near Simpson, Illinois, around midnight on October 14, 2000. The two occupants of the vehicle were William Barham, the Warden of the Vienna Correctional Center and Jerry Isom, the dietician at the Shawnee Correctional Center. Jerry Isom was killed in the accident. Following a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in excess of one million dollars. Issues presented for review concern evidence of alcohol consumption by the defendant Barham, the identity of the vehicle driver, jury instructions, evidence that defendant refused to answer questions about the accident, and scope of employment.
5-10-0074 - People v. Ortiz, Johnny Jackson County
The defendant in this case was found guilty of aggravated domestic battery and sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment. Three issues are presented for review: (1) whether the trial court erred when it gave the jury a non-pattern jury instruction erroneously defining great bodily harm which directed a guilty verdict, (2) whether the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on domestic battery, the lesser included offense of aggravated domestic battery, and (3) whether the defendant was denied a fair trial when the trial court allowed the prosecutor to impeach the defendant with prior battery convictions?
5-09-0133 - Metz v. Rosewood Care Center, Inc. of Edwardsville, et al. Madison County
This action was brought by the plaintiff, Vickey Metz, as Special Administrator and Representative of the Estate of Blanche Rexing, Deceased, alleging negligent administration of medication by Rosewood Care Center, Inc. of Edwardsville. The plaintiff also alleged that HSM Management Services, Inc. was negligent in that it failed to develop and implement sufficient policies and procedures for the administration of medication at Rosewood, and that Blanche Rexing's death resulted from this alleged negligence. Plaintiff asked the jury to award her in excess of 15 million dollars. A trial was held and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Rosewood and HSM. Plaintiff subsequently filed a timely post-trial motion, and following briefing and argument, the circuit court granted plaintiff a new trial. Defendants filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(1), which provides for a permissive interlocutory appeal from an order of the circuit court granting a new trial. On appeal the defendants/petitioners (Rosewood and HSM) contend that (1) the circuit court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff a new trial and (2) the circuit court abused its discretion in refusing to strike plaintiff's exhibits submitted in support of plaintiff's post-trial motion.
5-11-0279 - People v. Matthew Lewis Jackson County
This Rule 308 appeal presents a question of first impression, namely: is an expungement proceeding civil or criminal? Matthew Lewis, an indigent person residing in Jackson County, attempted to file a petition to expunge his record in Jackson County case 2005-CM-51. A fee and cost waiver certification pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/5-105.5 was filed with the Circuit Clerk of Jackson County along with the Petition to Expunge. The court denied the fee waiver on the grounds that the fee waiver statue in question is limited to civil cases and that an expungement proceeding is quasi-criminal and not purely a civil proceeding. At the request of the appellant, Matthew Lewis, the circuit court entered an order certifying the following question for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308: "Is a Fee and Cost Waiver Certification filed pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/5-105.5(b) sufficient to waive fees for the filing of a Petition for Expungement?" The State defines the issue before the court in the following manner: does a petition for expungement deal with a noncriminal matter or a criminal matter? If it is a criminal matter, then under the express terms of the statue in question, defendant does not qualify for a fee waiver because 735 ILCS 5/5-105.5 is limited to noncriminal matters.
Briefs available for all these cases at the Circulation Desk in the Law Library