History
  • No items yet
midpage
2016 IL App (1st) 140511
Ill. App. Ct.
2016
Read the full case

Background

  • On June 30, 2007 Pierre Jordan was shot to death in an apartment-complex parking lot; Thadieus Goods was charged with first-degree murder and personally discharging a firearm. Codefendants included Ronnell and Torrey Hansbrough and Tina Robinson.
  • Goods gave a videotaped statement admitting presence, describing fear of Jordan (who he said had a gun and posed a threat), saying he obtained a Russian 9mm and shot Jordan after Ronnell struck Jordan and Jordan fell; the State also introduced physical evidence of multiple guns and casings. The jury convicted Goods of first-degree murder and personally discharging a firearm.
  • At trial defense counsel attempted to assert compulsion but the court barred that defense (relying on Illinois precedent and statute language excluding murder); counsel did not request jury instructions for self-defense or second-degree murder despite arguing fear in closing.
  • Post-trial Goods argued ineffective assistance for failure to request self-defense instructions, and sought to present mitigation at sentencing via in camera testimony from an ASA (Goods had cooperated in an unrelated matter and feared being labeled a snitch); the trial court denied the in camera request and sentenced Goods to 65 years.
  • The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding counsel was ineffective for failing to request self-defense/second-degree instructions supported by some evidence, and discussing the trial court’s improper refusal to consider in camera mitigation when good cause (safety) was shown.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting self-defense and second-degree murder instructions Counsel reasonably pursued compulsion/other strategy; evidence did not support self-defense Trial counsel mistakenly believed compulsion ban precluded self-defense and therefore failed to request applicable instructions despite some evidentiary support Reversed: counsel was deficient and prejudice shown under Strickland; new trial ordered
Whether the court erred by barring compulsion as a defense Compulsion unavailable to murder defendants under Illinois law and statute language Defense urged compulsion as affirmative defense; court should have allowed evidence related to fear Court properly barred compulsion (compulsion not available for first-degree murder under precedent)
Whether denial of in camera mitigation hearing denied a fair sentencing process No statutory authority to hold sentencing mitigation in camera; public-trial presumption controls Goods showed good cause (cooperation/snitch label, prior jail assault) and sought in camera testimony to protect safety Appellate court criticized trial court refusal; found good-cause standard supports in camera consideration and protective procedures may be warranted on remand
Whether the 65-year sentence was excessive Sentence supported by heinous facts and extensive criminal history Argued mischaracterization of history and denial of mitigation harmed sentencing fairness Appellate court did not resolve excessiveness because conviction reversed; addressed sentencing issue for future proceedings and remanded

Key Cases Cited

  • Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
  • Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (public-trial guarantee; closure requires overriding interest and narrow tailoring)
  • Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (standards for closure of public proceedings)
  • People v. Gleckler, 82 Ill. 2d 145 (compulsion not available as defense to murder)
  • People v. Washington, 2012 IL 110283 (self-defense instruction and mandatory second-degree instruction when supported)
  • People v. Serrano, 286 Ill. App. 3d 485 (failure to request an instruction consistent with argued defense can be ineffective assistance)
  • People v. Gonzalez, 385 Ill. App. 3d 15 (counsel arguing a theory but failing to request corresponding instruction may be deficient)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Goods
Court Name: Appellate Court of Illinois
Date Published: Nov 17, 2016
Citations: 2016 IL App (1st) 140511; 62 N.E.3d 1168; 407 Ill.Dec. 246; 1-14-0511
Docket Number: 1-14-0511
Court Abbreviation: Ill. App. Ct.
Log In
    People v. Goods, 2016 IL App (1st) 140511