Illinois v. P.H.
Illinois Supreme Court
145 Ill. 2d 209, 582 N.E.2d 700 (1991)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
P.H. (defendant), a juvenile, was charged with one count of armed violence and two counts each of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated battery, and aggravated battery with a firearm. Illinois statute provided a gang-transfer provision that applied to defendants 15 years of age or older: if a juvenile was charged with a forcible felony, and the juvenile had previously been adjudicated delinquent for an act that constituted a felony and was part of gang activity, the juvenile court was required to enter an order allowing prosecution of the juvenile under Illinois criminal statute in circuit court. The state (plaintiff) filed a motion for the court to allow P.H. to be prosecuted under the criminal statute in circuit court, pursuant to the gang-transfer provision. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the provision violated the separation-of-powers doctrine because it removed jurisdiction from the juvenile court and placed jurisdiction in the circuit court and that it was therefore unconstitutional. The state appealed directly to the Illinois Supreme Court, asking the court to find that the gang-transfer provision complied with the separation-of-powers doctrine and was constitutional.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Freeman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
