People v. Brazziel, 406 Ill. App. 3d 412

Brazziel was convicted of first degree murder with a firearm enhancement for a fatal shot on Larry Brown in Chicago on April 26, 2006.
The shooting occurred in a crowd; Brazziel was at the front of the crowd when he drew a revolver and fired at Brown, who died from a gunshot wound to the back of the head.
Six witnesses testified; two identified Brazziel as the shooter at trial, while four others had prior statements identifying him and some pages of those statements were introduced.
Three defense witnesses testified for Brazziel claiming he was not the shooter and was with them that night.
The trial court and State engaged in Rule 431(b) issues relating to jury voir dire; on appeal, the court held there was a Rule 431(b) violation but reviewed for plain error and forfeiture under the Sprinkle doctrine.
Brazziel’s aggregate sentence of 60 years (35 years for murder plus 25 years for the firearm enhancement) was within statutory limits and affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Brazziel’s guilt was supported by eyewitness identifications.	Reliability of eyewitness identifications was questionable and the State’s evidence was unreliable.	Evidence sufficient; two eyewitness identifications plus impeached statements supported conviction.
Rule 431(b) compliance	Rule 431(b) was not violated in a way that affected the trial.	Trial court violated Rule 431(b) by insufficiently questioning jurors about Zehr principles.	Rule 431(b) violated; plain error review applies; no second-prong plain error found.
Plain error and forfeiture	Any Rule 431(b) error was harmless under plain error doctrine.	The error affected the fairness of the trial and warranted reversal under plain error first-prong.	No second-prong plain error; for first-prong, the evidence was not closely balanced; no reversal based on plain error.
Propriety of the State's cross-examination and rebuttal	Cross-examination properly tested credibility; rebuttal linked to testimony.	Cross-examination and rebuttal improperly attacked defense witnesses' morality.	No prosecutorial misconduct; any errors were not plain error; closing argument curing instruction applied.
Excessive sentence	Sentence properly within statutory range considering seriousness and rehabilitation.	Sentence overly harsh given mitigating factors like age and lack of prior record.	Sentence affirmed; court properly weighed aggravation and mitigation within discretion.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
People v. Evans, 209 Ill.2d 194 (Ill. 2004) (trial court credibility determination governs appellate review)
People v. Slim, 127 Ill.2d 302 (Ill. 1989) (identification credibility considerations)
People v. Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 (Ill. 1984) (Zehr principles for jury instructions)
People v. Glasper, 234 Ill.2d 173 (Ill. 2009) (structural vs non-structural error discussion prior to Rule 431(b) amendment)
People v. Thompson, 238 Ill.2d 598 (Ill. 2010) (Rule 431(b) violation not structural; plain error analysis applied)
People v. Herron, 215 Ill.2d 167 (Ill. 2005) (plain error principles and substantial rights)
People v. Nicholas, 218 Ill.2d 104 (Ill. 2005) (closing argument review; permissible comments on evidence)
People v. Enoch, 122 Ill.2d 176 (Ill. 1988) (forfeiture requirement for contemporaneous objections)
People v. Wheeler, 399 Ill. App.3d 869 (Ill. App. 2010) (Rule 431(b) inquiry timing and group questioning analysis)
People v. Bolyard, 61 Ill.2d 583 (Ill. 1975) (probation considerations and sentencing discretion)
People v. Stacey, 193 Ill.2d 203 (Ill. 2000) (balance between seriousness of offense and rehabilitation)
People v. Garcia, 296 Ill.App.3d 769 (Ill. App. 1998) (trial court need not recite every mitigating factor on sentencing)