People v. Lozano

9 Citing cases

  1. People v. Murray

    2017 Ill. App. 2d 150599 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 16 times
    In People v. Murray, 2017 IL App (2d) 150599, ¶ 88, rev'd on other grounds, 2019 IL 123289, the Second District refused to find section 24-1.8(a)(1) unconstitutional under the eighth amendment because the law "punishes an illicit act—the possession of a firearm without a FOID card.

    740 ILCS 147/10(1–3) (West 2012). ¶ 80 Relying on People v. Lozano , 2017 IL App (1st) 142723, 412 Ill.Dec. 511, 75 N.E.3d 491, defendant argues that the State failed to prove a "course or pattern of criminal activity" and, therefore, failed to prove that the Latin Kings are a street gang. The State has the obligation to prove every essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

  2. People v. Figueroa

    2020 Ill. App. 2d 160650 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 16 times
    In People v. Figuerao, 2020 IL App (2d) 160650, ¶¶ 86, 89 (citing People v. Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶¶ 38-39) this court held that an as-applied challenge is premature where the defendant did not raise the claim below, the trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter, and the trial court did not make findings of fact with respect to the issue.

    ¶ 72 In their original briefs, the parties noted the split of appellate authority as to whether an expert's opinion that an organization is a street gang establishes that element of the offense where the State does not present specific evidence detailing the organization's "course or pattern of criminal activity." Compare, i.e. , People v. Murray , 2017 IL App (2d) 150599, ¶ 83, 419 Ill.Dec. 674, 94 N.E.3d 212 (explaining that the Second District's position was that "an expert on gangs may opine on the ultimate issue of whether an organization is a street gang engaged in a course or pattern of criminal activity without testifying to specific dates or incidents"), with People v. Lozano , 2017 IL App (1st) 142723, ¶¶ 42, 44, 412 Ill.Dec. 511, 75 N.E.3d 491 (a "course or pattern of criminal activity" is an element of the offense, so the failure of the State to introduce evidence proving that element requires reversal). On May 30, 2018, our supreme court allowed leave to appeal in Murray .

  3. People v. Saucedo

    2019 Ill. App. 161973 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    And as we have previously recognized, it is important to distinguish the "plain and ordinary meaning" of that term from its "specific [statutory] definition." People v. Lozano, 2017 IL App (1st) 142723, ¶ 43. In light of that distinction, we cannot say that defense counsel's references to the Ambrose as a "street gang" (or his failure to object to the State's similar references) amounted to clear and unequivocal admissions that the Ambrose were a street gang as statutorily defined.

  4. People v. Murray

    2019 IL 123289 (Ill. 2019)   Cited 90 times
    In Murray, our supreme court articulated the level of sufficiency for expert witness testimony in criminal cases (id. ¶ 31), and a sufficiency argument as it relates to expert witness testimony was raised and rejected in Moody, 2020 IL App (1st) 190565, ¶¶ 51-53.

    8(a)(1) (West 2012) (unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member statute providing that the term "street gang" has the meaning ascribed to it by the Act); 740 ILCS 147/10 (West 2012) (defining "streetgang," including the term "course or pattern of criminal activity," which is itself separately defined). ¶ 14 Defendant contended that, as in People v. Lozano , 2017 IL App (1st) 142723, 412 Ill.Dec. 511, 75 N.E.3d 491, he could not be guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member because the State did not establish, by way of Dammon's testimony, that the Latin Kings committed certain crimes within the relevant time period. Thus, because the State did not show that the Latin Kings had engaged in a "course or pattern of criminal activity," during the requisite time period, the State failed to prove that the Latin Kings are a "street gang."

  5. People v. Hill

    2021 Ill. App. 190816 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    Additionally, because the legislature specifically defined the term "counterfeit," the State was required to prove the cards were counterfeit as that term is defined by section 17-0.5. See People v. Lozano, 2017 IL App (1st) 142723, ¶ 43; People v. Murray, 2019 IL 123289, ¶ 24. ¶ 16 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor, we conclude the State failed to prove the cards which defendant possessed were counterfeit as that term is defined by the Code.

  6. People v. Gray

    2019 Ill. App. 2d 161091 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    While a sufficiency argument cannot be waived, we note that defendant did not contemporaneously object to Hammond's testimony that the Insane Deuces is an Aurora gang. Further, defendant's reliance on People v. Lozano, 2017 IL App (1st) 142723, ¶ 43, is unpersuasive, as the court there specifically noted that the case before it was a jury trial, as opposed to a bench trial where, "[i]mportantly, *** the judge is presumed to know the law that applies." In this bench trial, we may presume that the trial judge understood Hammond's opinion that the Insane Deuces is a street gang in light of that term's statutory definition.

  7. People v. Ephraim

    2018 Ill. App. 161009 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 2 times
    Finding that the "defendant's conviction for aggravated battery to a peace officer without proof that the underlying battery resulted in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement does not qualify as a forcible felony under section 2-8"

    The State must prove "every essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Lozano , 2017 IL App (1st) 142723, ¶ 30, 412 Ill.Dec. 511, 75 N.E.3d 491.¶ 10 To prove defendant guilty of AHC, the State had to prove that he possessed a firearm after having been convicted of two or more of the following offenses:

  8. People v. Morris

    2018 Ill. App. 152636 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    The State must prove "every essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Lozano, 2017 IL App (1st) 142723, ¶ 30. We "will not set aside a criminal conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence unless the proof is so improbable or 11 unsatisfactory that there exists a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt."

  9. People v. Winlow

    2017 Ill. App. 4th 150446 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    ¶ 9 When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we regard all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the charged offense to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Lozano, 2017 IL App (1st) 142723 ¶ 28. ¶ 10 The charged offense in this case is "[u]nlawful contact with streetgang members," and the statute defines that offense as follows: