People v. Collins, 2026 IL 131300

Collins was charged with AUUW, possession of a firearm without an FOID card, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, and the UPWF count was severed for a separate trial. 1
At the UPWF trial, the parties stipulated Collins had a prior felony conviction, so the only disputed fact was whether he possessed the firearm. 2
The jury acquitted Collins on the UPWF count, and he then moved to dismiss the remaining gun-possession-based counts. 3
The circuit court dismissed the FOID count but refused to dismiss the AUUW count, and the appellate court later held issue preclusion barred both counts. 4
The State sought review, arguing Collins waived issue preclusion by requesting severance and that Currier v. Virginia limited Illinois preclusion rules. 5
The supreme court held Illinois common law and section 3-4(b)(2) give broader issue-preclusion protection and affirmed dismissal of the AUUW prosecution. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Currier bar Illinois issue preclusion after severance? 7	Collins said Illinois law still bars relitigation of decided facts.	The State said Currier makes severance waive issue preclusion.	Currier does not limit Illinois common law or section 3-4(b)(2). 8
Did the UPWF acquittal decide firearm possession? 9	Collins said the jury necessarily found he did not possess the gun.	The State said the general verdict did not establish that fact.	Yes; the jury necessarily found Collins did not possess the firearm. 10
Does issue preclusion bar the AUUW count? 11	Collins argued AUUW also required proof of possession already decided against the State.	The State said AUUW required different proof: carrying, not mere possession.	Yes; possession was a material issue in AUUW and cannot be relitigated. 12
Did Collins waive issue preclusion by moving to sever? 13	Collins said severance did not waive statutory or common-law preclusion rights.	The State said severance implied waiver of preclusion.	No waiver was shown; severance alone did not forfeit issue preclusion. 14
Do invited error or fairness defeat Collins's claim? 15	Collins said he used preclusion defensively after an acquittal.	The State said invited error and fairness barred relief.	Neither doctrine barred Collins from asserting issue preclusion. 16

Currier v. Virginia, 585 U.S. 493 (U.S. 2018) (severance can defeat federal double-jeopardy issue preclusion, but states may provide broader protections 17)
Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1970) (criminal collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an ultimate fact once decided 18)
Jeffers v. United States, 432 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1977) (a defendant who elects separate trials may forfeit a double-jeopardy claim 19)
Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (U.S. 2009) (acquittals must be given preclusive effect and protected from relitigation 20)
State Building Venture v. O’Donnell, 239 Ill. 2d 151 (Ill. 2010) (collateral-estoppel issues are reviewed de novo 21)
People v. Haran, 27 Ill. 2d 229 (Ill. 1963) (Illinois applies issue preclusion in criminal cases 22)
Hanna v. Read, 102 Ill. 596 (Ill. 1882) (Illinois common law long recognized estoppel by verdict 23)
Hoffman v. Hoffman, 330 Ill. 413 (Ill. 1928) (a prior verdict precludes issues necessarily decided 24)
People v. Jefferson, 2024 IL 128676 (Ill. 2024) (Illinois uses the term issue preclusion for collateral estoppel 25)
People v. Sophanavong, 2020 IL 124337 (Ill. 2020) (waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right 26)
People v. Carter, 208 Ill. 2d 309 (Ill. 2003) (invited error prevents a party from complaining about its own requested course 27)