People v. Anderson, 2012 IL App (1st) 103288

Anderson was charged with six counts of first-degree murder of Hart, two counts of attempted first-degree murder of Hazziez, and one count of aggravated discharge for a July 25, 2008 incident; convicted on all counts plus firearm enhancements and sentenced to a total of 71 years.
On direct appeal, Anderson challenged (a) the firearm-enhancement instructions’ order, (b) the attempted-murder instruction naming only ‘an individual’ rather than Hazziez, and (c) presentence credit time.
Hazziez testified that Hart shot Hart outside Orbitz Submarine; Hart wore no weapon; Hart and Anderson argued outside; Hazziez identified Anderson as the shooter at trial with surveillance video corroboration of the jacket.
Cooper and Jackson testified for the State; Cooper’s grand jury and written statements were impeached; fingerprints on a cigarette matched Anderson; jacket recovered at the scene linked Anderson to the crime.
The jury requested transcripts during deliberations; the court eventually instructed on the charges and firearm enhancements, but in a sequence deviating from IPI guidance.
The appellate court upheld the murder and firearm-enhancement convictions, reversed the attempted-murder conviction on the ground that the victim was not properly identified in the instructions, and ordered correction of presentence credit to 787 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether firearm-enhancement instructions were read in the order prescribed by the IPI.	People argues no reversible error and that the law was accurately stated.	Anderson argues the order violated committee guidance and confused jurors.	No reversible error; substantial conformity to law; not plain error.
Whether the attempted first-degree murder instruction improperly referred to ‘an individual’ rather than the victim Hazziez.	People contends the instruction correctly stated the law given the charges.	Anderson contends the instruction was confusing and could permit a conviction without implicating Hazziez as the victim.	Instruction erroneous; remand for a new trial on attempted first-degree murder.
Whether Anderson is entitled to additional presentence credit time (13 days).	State contends the credited days were correct.	Anderson asserts more credit should be given for pretrial custody.	Defendant entitled to 787 days of presentence credit; mittimus corrected.

People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166 (2010) (plain-error review governs preserved/unpreserved errors)
People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (2007) (closely balanced evidence and plain-error framework)
People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (2005) (plain-error standard and fairness considerations)
People v. Durr, 215 Ill. 2d 283 (2005) (plain-error analysis for jury instruction defects)
People v. Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d 1 (2004) (clear-error and plain-error standards)
LaSalle Bank, N.A. v. C/HCA Development Corp., 384 Ill. App. 3d 806 (2008) (deviations from IPI instructions may still be acceptable)
People v. Banks, 287 Ill. App. 3d 273 (1997) (deviation from committee directives permitted to fit facts)
Schultz v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 260 (2002) (standard for evaluating jury instruction errors)
Stevenson v. People, 198 Ill. App. 3d 376 (1990) (contextual guidance on addressing ambiguities in trial arguments)