Prior to trial, defendant requested and was granted a hearing to determine his fitness to stand trial pursuant to section 104-11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 ( .1981, ch. It is only necessary to set forth the proceedings below relevant to the issues raised on appeal. ![]() 587, 458 N.E.2d 1387, which declared unconstitutional the same subsection of the aggravated arson statute under which defendant was convicted here (3) whether the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was sane when he started the fire so that his convictions for aggravated arson and arson must be reversed and (4) whether defendant's conviction for arson must be vacated if this court affirms his conviction for aggravated arson, as the two offenses are based on the same conduct. 38, par.ĭefendant raises four issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court's finding that defendant's amnesia as to the events on the day of the offenses did not preclude him from effectively establishing the defense of insanity so that he was fit to stand trial, was error (2) whether the defendant's conviction for aggravated arson must be reversed under our decision in People v. Defendant was remanded to the Department of Corrections for imprisonment after he was found not to be in need of in-patient mental health services by the Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities following the verdict of not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. Defendant was sentenced to a 14-year term of imprisonment for aggravated arson to be served concurrently with a 5-year term of imprisonment imposed for arson. ![]() 20-1 (a)), and, following a jury trial, was found not guilty by reason of insanity of murder, and guilty but mentally ill of both aggravated arson and arson. Schwartz, was charged by indictment with two counts of murder ( .1981, ch.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |