2020 IL App (2d) 180151
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Late-night home invasion on Nov. 18, 2016; victim Voncile Modlinger was assaulted and called 911; two men fled and police later apprehended two suspects nearby.
- Drean McGee pleaded guilty to home invasion and burglary arising from the incident and received a 10-year sentence; at Fane’s trial McGee testified for the defense and gave an account that exculpated defendant Twiqwon Fane.
- McGee told police he and others targeted Modlinger’s home; he said he ran and later encountered Fane at Provena, threw a white T-shirt to Fane, and they were captured; DNA on the T‑shirt could not exclude either McGee or Fane.
- The trial court gave a modified accomplice‑witness instruction (IPI Criminal No. 3.17) over Fane’s objection, even though McGee’s trial testimony at Fane’s trial was wholly exculpatory.
- Jury convicted Fane of multiple offenses; on appeal Fane challenged (1) the accomplice‑witness instruction and (2) the trial court’s Rule 431(b) voir dire; the court found the instruction error dispositive and reversed and remanded for retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Fane) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether giving the accomplice‑witness instruction (IPI 3.17) regarding McGee was proper | Instruction can be given as a caution when a witness has been involved in related crimes; Rivera allows instruction even for a defense witness in some circumstances | Instruction cannot be given where the accomplice’s trial testimony at defendant’s trial is wholly exculpatory because it would undermine defendant’s use of favorable testimony | Court reversed: instruction was improper here because McGee’s testimony at Fane’s trial failed to implicate Fane; error was not harmless and required reversal |
| Whether the trial court complied with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) during voir dire | (State conceded error on appeal) | (Fane asserted Rule 431(b) violation; error not properly preserved) | Court declined to decide because the accomplice‑instruction error was dispositive and the Rule 431(b) issue was unlikely to recur on retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rivera, 166 Ill. 2d 279 (1995) (upheld giving IPI 3.17 where defense witness had earlier inculpated defendant in prior proceedings admitted at trial)
- People v. Dodd, 173 Ill. App. 3d 460 (1988) (accomplice‑witness instruction should not be given where the witness’s testimony completely fails to implicate the defendant)
- People v. Krush, 120 Ill. App. 3d 614 (1983) (same rule as Dodd under facts presented)
- People v. Szydloski, 283 Ill. App. 3d 274 (1996) (distinguished Rivera; improper to give IPI 3.17 where witness did not testify he was involved in a crime with defendant)
- People v. Jordan, 247 Ill. App. 3d 75 (1993) (explains accomplice‑witness instruction purpose—warn of motive to testify falsely)
- People v. Riggs, 48 Ill. App. 3d 702 (1977) (same rationale regarding accomplice motivation to obtain leniency)
- People v. Jackson, 79 Ill. App. 3d 660 (1979) (discusses limits and modification of accomplice‑witness instruction)
- In re Timothy H., 301 Ill. App. 3d 1008 (1998) (standard of review for jury‑instruction rulings: abuse of discretion)
- Cable America, Inc. v. Pace Electronics, Inc., 396 Ill. App. 3d 15 (2009) (failure to follow the law in jury instructions is an abuse of discretion)
- People v. Johnson, 146 Ill. 2d 109 (1991) (harmless–error standard for erroneous jury instructions)
- People v. Olivera, 164 Ill. 2d 382 (1995) (retrial permitted after reversal where evidence at trial was sufficient)