People v. Brown
2017 IL App (3d) 140514
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Dieuseul Brown was charged with two alternative counts of first-degree murder for the fatal shooting of Kelsey Coleman: Count I (felony murder) and Count II (knowing conduct creating strong probability of death).
- Witnesses (McNulty and Melodie Richardson) testified the defendant entered the home with a gun, threatened occupants, and was seen standing after shots; Richardson and McNulty identified Brown postincident.
- Defendant testified he went to the house for drugs, was assaulted by Coleman, picked up a fallen gun, fired a warning shot, then shot Coleman in self-defense while Coleman was on top of him.
- Jury was instructed on first-degree murder and on the lesser-mitigated offense of second-degree murder (IPI Criminal 4th No. 2.01B and 2.03A); jury was told to sign only one verdict form per count.
- Jury returned inconsistent verdict forms: acquitted on first-degree murder (Type A) but convicted of second-degree murder; also acquitted on first-degree murder (Type B) and found true the firearm discharge allegation. Trial court accepted and entered the conflicting verdicts; defendant was sentenced to 24 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inconsistent verdicts (acquittal of first-degree murder and conviction of second-degree murder) require vacatur of the conviction | State: jurors mistakenly filled extra forms; inconsistent verdicts are not constitutional error and do not warrant reversal when evidence suffices (invoking Powell); defendant forfeited the issue by failing to object or raise in posttrial motion | Brown: acquittal of first-degree murder precludes conviction of second-degree murder because the latter requires proof of first-degree murder; insufficiency claim can be raised for first time on appeal | Court: Forfeiture notwithstanding, reviewed for plain error and applied Powell line — inconsistent verdicts are erroneous but not of constitutional magnitude; performed independent sufficiency review and affirmed conviction of second-degree murder |
| Whether defendant forfeited review by failing to object/posttrial motion | State: defendant forfeited by not objecting or preserving issue | Defendant: argues the claim is a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, which may be raised on appeal | Court: acknowledged forfeiture but considered plain-error second-prong (substantial right) and found no substantial right was violated |
| Whether an independent sufficiency review is required here and, if so, whether evidence supports conviction of second-degree murder | State: independent review required by Powell; evidence supports conviction because defendant admitted shooting Coleman and testimony permitted finding defendant was the aggressor and not justified | Defendant: contends acquittal of first-degree murder shows insufficiency for second-degree murder and that independent review improperly reopens acquittal | Court: performed independent sufficiency review, concluded evidence supported a rational finding of guilt for second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether juror lenity or jury error defeats the conviction | State: juror lenity/extraneous error may explain inconsistent forms; Powell protects convictions in such circumstances | Defendant: argues the acquittal must stand and cannot be undermined indirectly | Court: held juror lenity/irrationality could explain inconsistency; because error is not constitutional, conviction stands if evidence is sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (review of inconsistent jury verdicts; inconsistent verdicts are not necessarily constitutional error)
- Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (each count is treated separately for verdict consistency analysis)
- People v. Jones, 207 Ill. 2d 122 (Illinois applies Powell to acquittal/conviction inconsistencies)
- People v. Parker, 223 Ill. 2d 494 (acquittal of first-degree murder normally bars consideration of second-degree murder when jury followed instructions)
- People v. Klingenberg, 172 Ill. 2d 270 (earlier Illinois approach to inconsistent verdicts discussed and later overruled)
- People v. Porter, 168 Ill. 2d 201 (example of legally inconsistent verdicts where elements conflict)
- People v. Jeffries, 164 Ill. 2d 104 (second-degree murder is a lesser mitigated offense of first-degree murder)
- People v. Walker, 7 Ill. 2d 158 (insufficiency claims that implicate essential elements may be raised on appeal)