People v. Smollett, 2024 IL 130431

Jussie Smollett was indicted in March 2019 for felony disorderly conduct after allegedly filing false police reports about a hate crime.
The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office (CCSAO) moved to dismiss (nolle prosequi) the charges eighteen days later, contingent on Smollett's completion of community service and forfeiture of his $10,000 bond to the City of Chicago, as part of a negotiated resolution.
After public controversy over the resolution, a special prosecutor was appointed. Smollett was reindicted on six counts based on the same conduct.
Smollett moved to dismiss the new indictment, arguing the original dismissal was part of an enforceable nonprosecution agreement that barred further prosecution.
The trial court denied his motion. Smollett was convicted and sentenced to probation, jail time, and restitution. The appellate court affirmed.
The Illinois Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, limited its review to whether the State could re-prosecute Smollett under these circumstances.

Issue	Smollett's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Is a second prosecution barred when a case is nolle prossed as part of a negotiated agreement?	Agreement to dismiss barred future prosecution; he performed under the deal.	No nonprosecution agreement existed, or, if any, it was not final, as a nolle prosequi does not bar reprosecution.	Reprosecution is a due process violation when charges are nolle prossed by bilateral agreement after defendant's performance; conviction reversed.
Was there a binding agreement between Smollett and the State?	Direct evidence of negotiation; dismissal and bond forfeiture were exchange for resolution.	No clear record of an enforceable agreement; bond forfeiture was voluntary.	There was a negotiated, binding agreement—State is bound to honor it.
Does the nature of a nolle prosequi disposal prevent it from being final?	Form of dismissal irrelevant where parties intend finality in negotiated resolution.	By law, nolle prosequi never imparts finality, and always allows refiling.	Where dismissal is by agreement and executed, finality and bar to reprosecution result.
Does procedural irregularity/voidness of original proceedings prevent enforcement?	Even if flawed, defendant relied and suffered detriment, so due process requires enforcement.	Original proceeding was void, so no enforceable agreement exists.	Due process requires enforcement when reliance causes constitutional consequences; State cannot benefit from own procedural errors.

People v. Starks, 106 Ill. 2d 441 (Ill. 1985) (State must honor agreements it makes with defendants if defendant performs)
People v. Smith, 233 Ill. App. 3d 342 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (Reinstating charges after defendant's performance under an agreement violated due process)
People v. Stapinski, 2015 IL 118278 (Ill. 2015) (Enforcement of nonprosecution agreements based on due process and contract principles)
People v. Johnson, 372 Ill. 18 (Ill. 1939) (State bound to nonprosecution agreement after defendant performance, even if dismissal was not with prejudice)
People v. Bogolowski, 317 Ill. 460 (Ill. 1925) (Prosecutorial agreements to dismiss by nolle prosequi are enforceable under public policy)