People v. Alexander
2017 IL App (1st) 142170
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Night of Nov. 22, 2011: Darion Mason was shot dead in his car; his mother heard two shots and saw an unknown person in the backseat. Defendant Kory Alexander was arrested nearby minutes later.
- Police found a hooded sweatshirt, two gloves, and a Hi-Point .40 handgun near the route officers said the suspect ran.
- Forensic testing: one glove tested positive for gunshot residue; DNA from the sweatshirt contained a major profile not matching defendant and a minor profile that did not exclude defendant; DNA from gloves produced profiles not excluding defendant. Latent print on the gun did not match defendant. Ballistics linked casings and a bullet to the recovered gun.
- Jury convicted Alexander of first degree murder but answered a special interrogatory that the State had not proved he personally discharged a firearm that proximately caused death.
- Defendant appealed, raising: (1) inconsistency between murder verdict and negative firearm-enhancement interrogatory, (2) alleged implied accountability instruction, (3) denial of a requested “mere presence” instruction, and (4) trial court’s extemporaneous response to a juror question about motive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the murder conviction must be vacated because jury found defendant did not personally discharge the firearm | State: The firearm-discharge finding is a separate sentencing enhancement; it is not an element of first degree murder | Alexander: Under Alleyne and related authority, personal discharge is an element of an aggravated murder and inconsistency requires vacatur | Affirmed: Special interrogatory on discharge does not negate murder conviction; inconsistency permissible under Jones/Powell and discharge is separate from murder elements |
| Whether jury was implicitly instructed on accountability though no accountability instruction was given | State: Jury was properly instructed; discharge is a separate factual question for enhancement | Alexander: Jury instructions separated discharge from murder and thus insinuated accountability liability | No error: Court found no implicit accountability instruction and instructions were proper under Apprendi/Alleyne framework |
| Whether trial court erred by denying defendant’s nonpattern “mere presence” instruction | State: No evidence supported presence of another person at scene | Alexander: Evidence supported giving the instruction (limited eyewitness clarity; DNA mix on sweatshirt) | No abuse of discretion: Trial court properly declined—record did not support instruction because evidence pointed to defendant as the lone suspect |
| Whether trial court’s in-court answer to juror asking why motive wasn’t required was reversible error | State: Exchange occurred in open court with parties present; no prejudice | Alexander: Court should have conferred with parties and directed jury to rely on instructions | No reversible error: Communication occurred in open court with counsel present (not ex parte); no actual prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (elements that increase penalty must be submitted to jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (fact increasing mandatory minimum is an element for jury to find)
- Powell v. Alabama, 469 U.S. 57 (inconsistent jury verdicts do not require reversal)
- People v. Jones, 207 Ill. 2d 122 (Illinois follows Powell—convictions need not be consistent with acquittals on other charges)
- People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481 (firearm-discharge enhancement contains distinct elements from murder)
- People v. Sawczenko-Dub, 345 Ill. App. 3d 522 (murder conviction does not necessarily depend on proving firearm use; enhancement is separate)
- People v. Childs, 159 Ill. 2d 217 (ex parte communications with jury after retirement deprive defendant of rights; open-court communications differ)
- People v. Spears, 112 Ill. 2d 396 (courts may not speculate about jury motives)