People v. Coots
2012 IL App (2d) 100592
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Amanda Coots was convicted of drug-induced homicide for the death of Rustin Cawthon from heroin.
- Indictment alleged she knowingly delivered a substance containing heroin to Cawthon, causing his death.
- Evidence showed both defendant and Cawthon were involved in procuring the heroin; defendant made calls and located a supplier, while Cawthon paid for part of the drug.
- A.J. delivered heroin to defendant, who then gave it to Cawthon; she pocketed the second bag and claimed the money belonged to Cawthon.
- During jury deliberations, the jury asked whether delivery could mean “give,” and the court did not directly answer, guiding them to the jury instructions.
- Defendant argued on appeal that the evidence supported only joint possession, not unlawful delivery, and that trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a supplemental delivery instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proves delivery, not joint possession | Coots delivered heroin causing death | Only joint possession; no delivery to victim | Evidence reasonably supports either delivery or joint possession |
| Effect of trial counsel’s failure to request a delivery instruction | Swiderski framework supports delivery | Counsel not required to request absent clear standard | Ineffective assistance; failure prejudiced defendant |
| Duty to answer jury’s question about the meaning of 'delivery' | Delivery could be broader than mere handoff | Jury should be instructed narrowly on delivery | Trial court erred by not answering and providing proper instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Swiderski v. United States, 548 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1977) (joint purchases for personal use not delivery)
- Edwards v. People, 702 P.2d 555 (Cal. 1985) (distinguishes copurchase from furnishing; equal partners may negate delivery)
- Carithers v. Minnesota, 490 N.W.2d 620 (Minn. 1992) (constructive possession and joint control debated)
- Long v. United States, 623 A.2d 1144 (D.C. 1993) (link between purchaser and distribution; joint possession vs transfer)
- Wright v. United States, 593 F.2d 105 (9th Cir. 1979) (distinguishes Swiderski; transfer by distributee not co-purchase)
- Moore v. State, 529 N.W.2d 264 (Iowa 1995) (delivery to recipient despite beneficiary’s involvement)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 602 N.E.2d 555 (Mass. 1992) (copurchase not automatically reduce to possession; delivery needs transfer)
- Toppan v. State, 425 A.2d 1336 (Me. 1981) (practical control vs rights of ownership in contraband)
- Boand v. State, 362 Ill. App. 3d 106 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (Illinois appellate treatment of delivery/possession concepts)