People v. Grant
2017 IL App (1st) 142956
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Tyrice Grant was tried in a bench trial for reckless discharge of a firearm and two counts of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon (UUWF) after he shot himself in the hand inside his two‑flat apartment on December 8, 2013.
- Police found the defendant at the scene with a bandaged, bloody hand; a semiautomatic handgun with blood on it lay in the apartment; the gun contained rounds in the chamber and magazine.
- At the hospital, the defendant told Detective Gomez he retrieved the gun from a roommate’s bedroom and ‘‘attempted to clear [it]’’ when he shot himself.
- The State introduced a prior felony conviction to support the UUWF charges; no other persons were shown to have been present in the apartment or nearby when the discharge occurred.
- The trial court convicted on all counts and sentenced the defendant to concurrent three‑year terms; defendant appealed arguing (1) insufficiency of evidence for reckless discharge because no other person was endangered, and (2) one UUWF conviction must be vacated under the one‑act, one‑crime rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “an individual” in the reckless discharge statute includes the shooter | State: statute’s plain wording includes the shooter; alternatively, facts show others may have been endangered | Grant: “an individual” means someone other than the offender; self‑injury does not satisfy the element | Reversed conviction — "an individual" means someone other than the defendant; evidence did not show another person was endangered |
| Sufficiency of evidence that another person’s bodily safety was endangered | State: reckless discharge inside a residence could have endangered others; viewing evidence favorably, a trier of fact could find others endangered | Grant: no evidence any other person or residence was in the vicinity; only the defendant was harmed | Reversed — evidence insufficient to prove danger to another person beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Application of one‑act, one‑crime to two UUWF convictions | State (conceded on appeal): both convictions arise from possession of the same firearm and cannot both stand | Grant: argued duplicate convictions should be vacated | Remanded — vacate the less serious UUWF conviction; trial court to determine which is less serious and resentence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Collins, 214 Ill. 2d 206 (state must show reckless conduct created a dangerous situation so that another individual was in peril)
- People v. Peters, 180 Ill. App. 3d 850 ("an individual" in reckless‑conduct statute refers to someone other than the defendant)
- People v. Giraud, 2012 IL 113116 (reckless discharge requires proof that one or more other persons were endangered)
- People v. Coleman, 227 Ill. 2d 426 (legislative acquiescence to judicial statutory interpretation)
- People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551 (one‑act, one‑crime rule prohibits multiple convictions based on same physical act)
- People v. Artis, 232 Ill. 2d 156 (vacate the less serious offense when one‑act, one‑crime violation occurs)