2022 IL App (2d) 210151
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background:
- Defendant Matthew Grabow was charged with domestic battery for striking his girlfriend, Yasmin El Said, after she continued talking on his cell phone when he asked for it back.
- At trial El Said testified defendant charged at her, she was struck in the face, dropped the phone and her glasses; she cried and was afraid; a prior 2016 domestic-battery incident between them was admitted.
- Defense theory at trial: defendant was reaching for his phone and did not intend to strike El Said; counsel did not tender a defense-of-property instruction and presented no evidence; defendant did not testify.
- The jury found defendant guilty; the trial court sentenced him to 12 months’ conditional discharge; defendant moved for a new trial raising unspecified instruction errors.
- On appeal defendant argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to tender a defense-of-property affirmative-defense instruction; the State countered that the instruction was unwarranted and counsel’s choice was sound strategy.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding counsel was not ineffective because evidence did not support the defense-of-property instruction and defendant suffered no prejudice.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not tendering a defense-of-property instruction | Counsel’s omission was not deficient; evidence did not warrant the instruction and omission was strategic | Counsel should have requested the instruction because there was at least slight evidence defendant was grabbing his phone (an affirmative defense) | Not ineffective: evidence insufficient to support the defense; omission was reasonable strategy and no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504 (Illinois adoption of Strickland standard)
- People v. Everette, 141 Ill. 2d 147 (defendant entitled to instruction for any recognized defense with some supporting evidence)
- People v. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d 361 (counsel’s choice of instructions is trial strategy entitled to deference)
- Valor Ins. Co. v. Torres, 303 Ill. App. 3d 554 (permission to use property may be revoked by request)
- People v. Taylor, 233 Ill. App. 3d 461 (slight evidence standard does not permit mere speculation)
- People v. Kyse, 220 Ill. App. 3d 971 (declining to raise every available defense can be sound strategy)
- Wilson v. United States, 414 F.3d 829 (arguing inconsistent defenses can harm a defendant)
- People v. Alexander, 250 Ill. App. 3d 68 (affirmative-defense instruction proper when any slight supporting evidence exists)