People v. Cowart
2017 IL App (1st) 113085
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- On June 21, 2009, a chaotic shooting at an outdoor Father’s Day party in Chicago resulted in the death of Lee Floyd; multiple guns fired and many attendees were armed.
- Defendant Charles Cowart was arrested and charged with first degree murder (accountability theory), being an armed habitual criminal (AHC), and aggravated discharge; the State later proceeded on murder and AHC only.
- At trial several eyewitnesses implicated groups of men; some identified Cowart in lineups and testified he fired at fleeing women; forensic testing linked one recovered 9mm to casings at the scene but the fatal bullet exited the body and could not be matched to a weapon.
- Cowart gave a videotaped statement saying multiple others (e.g., Keevo, Pooh Bear, Pee Wee) fired and that Keevo accidentally shot Lee; Cowart admitted having a gun but denied firing the fatal shot.
- Jury convicted Cowart of first degree murder (accountability) and the court found him guilty of AHC; he received 51 years for murder (including 20-year firearm enhancement) plus a concurrent 20 years for AHC.
- This court originally reversed both convictions on appeal; after the Illinois Supreme Court’s supervisory order to reconsider in light of People v. McFadden, the panel (1) affirmed the AHC conviction, (2) reversed the first degree murder conviction for insufficient evidence under accountability, and (3) remanded for resentencing on the AHC count.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Cowart's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree murder under accountability | Evidence of a common criminal design: group fight, many armed men, Cowart shot at fleeing women, flight and concealment support accountability for Lee’s death | Evidence only shows Cowart shot at Iesha and friends; fatal shooter unknown; no proof the killer shared any common design with Cowart | Reversed murder conviction: evidence insufficient to prove a common criminal design between Cowart and the unknown shooter who killed Lee |
| Validity of using prior AUUW conviction as AHC predicate after Aguilar (post-McFadden) | Under McFadden, an unvacated prior AUUW conviction (even if statute later invalidated in Aguilar) may still serve as an AHC predicate because the felon status existed at the relevant time | AUUW was facially unconstitutional under Aguilar and thus cannot serve as a predicate for collateral punishment like AHC | Affirmed AHC conviction: McFadden governs; unvacated prior AUUW conviction can be a predicate for AHC |
| Applicability of federal/Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Lewis, Montgomery) to bar McFadden logic | Lewis supports using an unvacated prior conviction as a predicate; Montgomery does not prevent collateral consequences where the prior conviction has not been vacated | Montgomery and other Supreme Court cases forbid collateral punishment based on convictions rendered unconstitutional | Court rejects Cowart’s Montgomery-based challenge and follows McFadden/Lewis reasoning |
| Firearm enhancement to murder sentence | N/A (State obtained enhancement) | Contest that enhancement was improper | Not decided on merits—murder vacated; remand for resentencing on AHC only |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McFadden, 2016 IL 117424 (state may use an unvacated prior AUUW conviction as a predicate for a firearm offense)
- People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112115 (Illinois statute on AUUW held unconstitutional)
- Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (prior felony conviction that has not been vacated may be used as predicate for felon-in-possession enforcement)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (retroactivity and vacatur issues addressed; court considered but held not to bar McFadden’s reasoning)
- Fagan v. Washington, 942 F.2d 1155 (7th Cir. 1991) (criticized accountability convictions where bullet attribution to defendant’s group was assumed)
- People v. Terry, 99 Ill. 2d 508 (sufficient evidence for accountability where principal shared criminal design)
- People v. Kessler, 57 Ill. 2d 493 (accountability upheld where defendant participated in joint plan)
- People v. Perez, 189 Ill. 2d 254 (insufficient evidence where no proof defendant shared criminal intent or common design)