3d at 115, 915 N.E.2d at 35. Cordero took J.O. 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. 2023 The President and Fellows of Harvard University. It appears, as a matter of trial strategy, defense counsel chose not to cross-examine R.K. about the charge alleged in the indictment, nor did he question her about her statement to Officer Luckey. aggravated criminal sexual abuse and remanded for resentencing. 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. 1. The Chippewa or Ojibwe people were also from the same general area. 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. 322,408 Ill.App.3d 732. was already awake when he put his finger into her vagina, with the finger again entering as far as the fingernail. 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. RATIONALE The court refers to corpus delicti and explains proof of corpus delicti may not rest solely on the confession from a defendant. Deputy Smith testified he was dispatched to Kathleen K.s home on May 9, 2008, talked to Kathleen, and took a report. There is no reason to believe R.K. would have refused to answer a question from defense counsel as to whether defendant put his mouth or tongue on her vagina. A reversion can be used in a GRAT or GRUT to: (a) Remove trust property from a grantor's estate. said, Yes, he has but it wasn't Phillip.. Thus, the video and trial testimony both constitute substantive evidence and support defendants conviction. Not yet answered Select one: Marked out of O a. Accordi . Jason now appeals. A few days later, when she came back to lie on the floor after going to the bathroom late at night, Jason put his hand inside her panties and on her vagina. One night she woke up to find her pants and underpants pulled down to her knees, and Jason's hand resting on her private part.. 's answers. We affirm. Further, an attorney surely does not want to elicit an answer that will implicate his client. United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case [1] which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. He did not recall much about the statement he signed at the station. 's pants and touched her vagina. His confession was admitted into evidence; the girl gave statements and testified at trial. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the States evidence, we view the evidence presented in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the State proved the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jason testified that he never touched J.O. The jury found defendant guilty of predatory criminal sexual assault.
sectetur adipiscing elit. 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. In September 2008, a jury found defendant guilty of predatory criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12 14.1(a)(1) (West 2006)). An assistant State's Attorney read to the jury the handwritten statement Jason signed. On appeal, he argued that the J.O. In July 2008, a hearing was held on R.K.s out-of-court statement. inappropriately, and he never put his hand in her pants. [115], Souter wrote that this dissonance in court decisions will lead to confusion, stating: "And confusion, I fear, will be the legacy of today's decision, for our failure to stand by what we have previously said reveals that our conceptualizations of sovereignty and dependent sovereignty are largely rhetorical. 1-09-1326. The doctor testified that epileptics often remain confused for hours after a seizure. In the recorded interview, RK. Section 12 12(f) of the Code defines sexual penetration as any contact, however slight, between the sex organ or anus of one person by an object, the sex organ, mouth, or anus of another person, or any intrusion, however slight, of any part of the body of one person or of any animal or object into the sex organ or anus of another person, including but not limited to cunnilingus, fellatio or anal penetration. 720 ILCS 5/12 12(f) (West 2006). People v. Lara - 67 Cal.2d 365 - Fri, 09/29/1967 | California Supreme into a bedroom and asked her if Phillip had ever touched her in a way that made her uncomfortable. 3d at 483, 912 N.E.2d at 294. In fact, Glaub stated R.K. said no one told her what to say. At the time of the offense, R.K. was 5 years old (born September 16, 2002) and defendant was 25 years old. The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason LARA, Defendant-Appellant. He testified he had received special training on how to interview children who are victims of sexual abuse or severe physical abuse.