People v. Dunbar
127 N.E.3d 604
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Four-month-old J.M. arrived at an ER in full cardiac arrest and died; autopsy showed multiple skull fractures, massive subscalp hemorrhage, brain hemorrhages, and an anal tear—cause of death: blunt head trauma.
- Defendant Dunbar (20) and the child’s mother, Leila Martin, were the only adults present; Martin found the infant unresponsive; defendant had last changed and fed the infant and was performing CPR when first responders arrived.
- Defendant gave a videotaped police interview (waived Miranda) in which he denied involvement and suggested possible accidental causes; officers used increasingly aggressive interrogation tactics but defendant did not confess.
- The State introduced medical records, photos, clothes/blankets with fecal staining, clinic treatment notes from three days earlier documenting painful diaper rash, and Martin’s statements to medical personnel describing timing and the infant’s condition.
- Defendant was charged with first degree murder and aggravated battery of a child (charging instrument included accountability language), tried by jury, convicted of both counts, sentenced to 30 years on the murder count, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (guilt/principal vs. accountability) | Evidence proves Dunbar guilty (either as principal or accountable); physical injuries show violent abuse inconsistent with accident. | Inclusion of accountability language required State to prove Dunbar acted for another (Martin); evidence insufficient to show accountability. | Affirmed: conviction supported; accountability language did not limit State to one theory; unanimity not required as to alternate means. |
| Rule 431(b) voir dire compliance | Court’s group questioning satisfied Rule 431(b). | Trial court failed to ask jurors if they both understood and accepted each Rule 431(b) principle (presumption, burden, no obligation to testify, no adverse inference). | Error occurred (court failed to ask “understand” and “accept”); but plain-error review fails because evidence was not closely balanced, so claim forfeited. |
| Ineffective assistance re: videotape redaction | N/A (State) | Counsel was ineffective for not moving to redact portions of the interview where officers’ tactics paused/led to prejudicial statements. | Denied: counsel’s decision was reasonable trial strategy; contested portions used to highlight interrogation techniques and defendant’s demeanor; no prejudice shown. |
| Admission of mother’s statements (medical-treatment hearsay) | Statements to medical personnel were admissible under medical-treatment exception and as substantive evidence. | Admission and later instruction allowing statements as substantive evidence was error. | Forfeited: defendant preserved at trial but not posttrial; plain-error review denied because evidence not closely balanced. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Stanciel, 153 Ill. 2d 218 (defendant accountable for another is not a separate crime)
- People v. Ceja, 204 Ill. 2d 332 (accountability language in charging instrument gives notice but does not limit theory of proof)
- People v. Travis, 170 Ill. App. 3d 873 (jury unanimity need not extend to alternate means of committing offense)
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (Rule 431(b) requires asking jurors whether they understand and accept each principle)
- People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584 (example of closely balanced evidence turning on credibility)
- People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445 (qualitative, commonsense assessment for closely balanced plain-error review)