People v. Bell
2012 IL App (5th) 100276
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Defendant Carol Bell was convicted of attempted possession of anhydrous ammonia under 720 ILCS 646/25(a)(1).
- The State amended the charge from unlawful possession to attempted unlawful possession.
- The trial presented police stakeout evidence showing Swango’s substantial step toward stealing ammonia and Bell’s vehicle as the means of transportation.
- Bell testified she did not know Swango would steal ammonia and claimed she merely gave him a ride.
- Bell challenged the jury instructions, arguing the court failed to define the element of a “substantial step” for the attempt offense; the court later affirmed the conviction as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of a substantial-step instruction was plain error | People contends no plain error since the statute doesn’t define substantial step. | Bell argues the jury should have received IPI 6.05 defining a substantial step. | Omission did not rise to plain error under Hopp/Sargent framework. |
| Whether Bell’s accountability for Swango’s actions was properly instructed | People relied on accountability theory to prove Bell aided or abetted Swango. | Bell contends issue centered on Bell’s own attempt, not accountability. | Accountability instruction properly given; controversy centered on aiding Swango. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods, 24 Ill.2d 154 (Ill. 1962) (recognizes requirement of substantial steps to constitute an attempt)
- Paluch, 78 Ill.2d 356 (Ill. App.2d 1966) (two elements to constitute an attempt: intent and substantial step)
- Herron, 215 Ill.2d 167 (Ill. 2005) (plain-error framework for unpreserved error)
- Hopp, 209 Ill.2d 1 (Ill. 2004) (plain-error analysis when a jury instruction omission did not prejudice)
- Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166 (Ill. 2010) (plain-error analysis standard applied to trial errors)