People v. Brown
2017 IL App (1st) 160025
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- George Brown was initially tried by bench trial for aggravated battery to a police officer; the court acquitted him of aggravated battery but convicted him of resisting/obstructing a peace officer (misdemeanor).
- Brown’s conviction for resisting was later vacated after discovery of a police observational device (POD) video that cast doubt on officer testimony; the court ordered a new trial on the resisting charge only.
- At the suppression hearing, officers changed aspects of their account (claiming they encountered two similar SUVs); the trial court found the POD video inconclusive and denied the motion to quash arrest.
- The State never amended or refiled the charging instrument after the aggravated-battery acquittal; the second trial proceeded on resisting arrest though Brown had not been formally charged or arraigned on that offense for the retrial.
- The trial court excluded the POD video from the jury, denied Brown’s requested self-defense/excessive-force instruction, and the jury convicted Brown of resisting arrest; this conviction is on appeal and the appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy / collateral estoppel | No double jeopardy; retrial permitted because original resisting conviction was vacated and lesser-included issue may be retried | Second trial prosecuted same conduct; prior acquittal of aggravated battery estops relitigation | No double jeopardy violation; collateral estoppel does not bar retrial for resisting because acquittal of aggravated battery did not resolve the specific factual issue of whether Brown struck the officer |
| Motion to quash arrest / probable cause | Officers had lawful basis to stop/arrest; trial court correctly found POD video inconclusive | POD video undermines officers’ testimony; arrest lacked probable cause | Trial court’s credibility findings supported; denial of motion to quash was not against manifest weight of the evidence |
| Charging instrument / notice | Resisting is a permissible lesser-included offense under the original information | Due process violated because Brown was not recharged or arraigned on resisting after acquittal; jury instructed on an offense he was never formally charged with | Court held resisting is a lesser-included offense of aggravated battery but criticized State for not recharging; failure to recharge appears problematic though reversal was based on other errors |
| Jury instruction (self-defense / excessive force) | No basis for self-defense instruction because evidence did not show lawful use of force by defendant | Evidence of excessive force and that Brown may have acted to protect himself justified self-defense instruction | Trial court erred in refusing the self-defense/excessive-force instruction; sufficient evidence (even slight) supported giving it, and refusal denied Brown a fair trial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Knaff, 196 Ill. 2d 460 (Ill. 2001) (lesser‑included‑offense doctrine; charging‑instrument approach)
- People v. Mink, 141 Ill. 2d 163 (Ill. 1990) (acquittal bars retrial on same offense)
- People v. Jones, 207 Ill. 2d 122 (Ill. 2003) (limits of drawing specific factual inferences from an acquittal)
- Pearce v. North Carolina, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969) (retrial after vacation of conviction does not violate double jeopardy when conviction nullified for reasons other than sufficiency of evidence)
- Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (U.S. 1960) (defendant cannot be tried on charges different from the indictment/information)
- People v. Ayers, 331 Ill. App. 3d 742 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (self‑defense instruction required where evidence of excessive force is presented)