People v. Land, 2011 IL App (1st) 101048

Defendant Jenell Land was convicted by a jury of aggravated cruelty to a companion animal; trauma stemmed from a heavy tow chain used as a dog collar which caused life-threatening injury and eventual euthanasia of Carmello.
The chain had been embedded in Carmello’s neck for an extended period, with veterinary testimony indicating weeks of injury, while defense testimony suggested shorter duration.
Indictment alleged Land intentionally placed or left the chain around Carmello’s neck, causing serious injury through prolonged contact.
Pretrial suppression motions (arrest suppression and Miranda rights) were denied; Land challenged the reading of Miranda warnings and the legality of arrest.
Evidence at trial included veterinary expert testimony and police testimony detailing the chain’s condition, animal hospital records, and Land’s statements, culminating in a guilty verdict and probationary sentence with fines.
On appeal Land argued (1) lack of specific-intent instruction, (2) improper jury-note response, (3) improper Miranda-related ruling, (4) improper closing arguments referencing profanity, and (5) fines/fees abnormalities; the appellate court affirmed the conviction and vacated two challenged charges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there plain error for failure to instruct on specific intent?	Land argues the State must prove specific intent.	Land asserts error not preserved; plain error review warranted.	No plain error; issue forfeited and not reversible under plain error.
Was the jury-note response proper on whether an omission qualifies as an act?	State argues act includes omission; defense contends error.	Omission not an act would misstate law; request for instruction.	No abuse of discretion; omission recognized as act under statute; no plain error.
Did the Miranda-readings issue warrant suppression?	State showed defendant understood warnings.	Defendant was too upset to pay attention to warnings.	No suppression error; waiver proven by understanding and acknowledgment.
Did the prosecutor’s closing referencing profanity require reversal?	Prosecutor’s remarks were permissible; extensive closing context.	Closing remarks unfairly prejudicial.	No reversible error; closing remarks within permissible range given context.
Were fines and fees properly imposed?	State requests adjustments to fines.	Some fees improper under statute.	Vacate $5 and $20 charges; other requested adjustment not supported; issue waived.

People v. Williams, 181 Ill. 2d 297 (Ill. 1998) (plain-error and trial-judgment review guidance cited by court)
People v. Ogunsola, 87 Ill. 2d 216 (Ill. 1981) (instructional error framework; strict liability distinctions)
People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (Ill. 2007) (plain-error standard for unpreserved errors)
People v. Williams, 181 Ill. 2d 297 (Ill. 1998) (instructional clarity and credibility considerations)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) ( Miranda rights understanding standard; waiver must be knowing)
People v. Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d 81 (Ill. 2010) (deferential/appellate review of suppression rulings; de novo ultimate legal ruling)