Court Filings

The Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court affirmed Bryce Andrews’ convictions and sentence for the murders of his father and stepfather. Andrews challenged the trial court’s order requiring him to submit to a psychological examination by the State’s expert before a suppression hearing on whether his February 5, 2021 statements were voluntary. The court held the order was proper under 725 ILCS 5/115-6 because the facts and circumstances gave reasonable ground to believe a mental-status defense might be raised, and alternatively the court had inherent authority to manage evidentiary presentation. The court also found no prejudice from the examination.

The Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Charles F. Watts’s postconviction petition after a third-stage evidentiary hearing. Watts argued he made a substantial showing of actual innocence, that trial counsel was ineffective for not calling an alibi witness (Terrance Linear), and that postconviction counsel failed to comply with Rule 651(c). The court held the petition was decided after a third-stage hearing, rejected the actual-innocence claim as forfeited for lack of a proper third-stage argument, found no Strickland error because counsel’s choice not to call Linear could be strategic in light of surveillance video, and determined Rule 651(c) claims about second-stage pleading are moot once a claim receives a full evidentiary hearing.

A jury in McLean County convicted Kevon Moon of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and obstructing justice based on circumstantial evidence tying him and co-defendant James to firearms and conduct surrounding an October 12, 2020 shooting. On appeal Moon argued (1) ineffective assistance for not objecting when the State impeached its own witness with prior recorded inconsistent statements, (2) that a video showing him rapping and dancing with a firearm was unduly prejudicial, and (3) it was error to allow a lead detective to sit at the State’s counsel table. The appellate court affirmed, finding the recorded statements were admissible as substantive evidence, the video was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial, and the court properly exercised its discretion to permit the detective at counsel table.