2018 IL App (5th) 150236
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Danny S. Garner was tried by jury for unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon; convicted and sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment plus 1 year MSR.
- Officers observed Garner reaching under the passenger seat, saw a gun on the floorboard, and chased him after he fled; Garner dropped a magazine and later threw a handgun that officers recovered nearby.
- Detective Williams testified about submitting the gun, magazine, and bullets to the crime lab; on cross he did not know whether testing occurred. On redirect, he explained the crime lab has a policy against DNA testing guns in felon-possession cases and a policy document excluding such testing was admitted.
- After the State’s redirects, the trial court announced a blanket rule refusing any recross-examination, telling defense counsel that the State gets the “last shot” and denying further questioning. Defense counsel therefore did not recross subsequent witnesses.
- Jury asked for a definition of reasonable doubt; court gave the Prim instruction; jury convicted less than three hours into deliberations. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial based on the trial court’s denial of recross-examination as plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court violated Rule 431(b) during voir dire | Not raised as primary; State did not contest error here | Trial contends court failed to ask jurors if they accepted the four Rule 431(b) principles | Not reached on merits because reversal based on recross error (issue reserved) |
| Trial court’s blanket refusal to permit recross-examination | Error not preserved; any error harmless; no offer of proof | Denial of recross was a blanket, arbitrary refusal that prevented confrontation and cross on new matters opened on redirect | Reversed: blanket prohibition was plain error and prejudicial; new trial ordered |
| Sua sponte giving of a “deadlock”/Prim instruction in response to jury question | Instruction appropriate to clarify reasonable doubt | Potentially coercive or improper (argued) | Not decided on appeal because remand renders the issue unlikely to recur |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (discusses plain-error doctrine)
- People v. Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d 81 (Confrontation right and cross-examination principles)
- Grundy County Nat’l Bank v. Myre, 34 Ill. App. 3d 287 (trial court refusal to allow recross where redirect opened new matter is improper)
- People v. Hartness, 45 Ill. App. 3d 129 (blanket or arbitrary limits on further examination beyond recross are prejudicial and improper)