2019 IL App (3d) 170185
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- William Grant (Black) was tried for home invasion and related offenses in Peoria County; jury selection resulted in one African American juror (Juror B).
- During trial the court and a victim-witness advocate observed Juror B nodding off and apparently sleeping during key testimony; another juror (Juror C.) exhibited lighter signs of drowsiness.
- The State moved midtrial to remove Juror B. for cause; the court found Juror B had been sleeping and dismissed him over defendant's objection; defendant's mistrial motion was denied.
- Defendant was convicted of home invasion; a PSI showed seven prior felony convictions; at sentencing the court cited three aggravating factors including that defendant's conduct "caused or threatened serious harm," and sentenced Grant to 24 years' imprisonment.
- On appeal Grant argued (1) unequal treatment and denial of due process from removal of the lone Black juror, and (2) improper use of a fact inherent in the offense as an aggravating factor at sentencing.
- The appellate court affirmed: it held the juror removal was for a race-neutral cause (sleeping) and not discriminatory, and even if the court considered an element-related factor at sentencing any weight given to that factor was insignificant compared to the defendant's criminal history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Grant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Midtrial removal of lone Black juror for cause | Removal was race-neutral because juror had fallen asleep; jurors were not similarly situated | Removal discriminated against lone Black juror; court deferred to State and failed to conduct adequate inquiry, violating equal protection and due process | Affirmed — court properly found juror sleeping, jurors not similarly situated, no unconstitutional discrimination or due process violation |
| Consideration of offense-inherent fact as aggravating factor | Any mention of the factor was minor; primary aggravation was extensive prior felonies and need for deterrence | Court improperly doubled-enhanced by using a fact inherent to home invasion (threat of force) to aggravate sentence; plain error requires resentencing | Affirmed — even if improper factor mentioned, record shows insignificant weight was given to it; sentence upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (prohibits racial exclusion of jurors; jury selection must be nondiscriminatory)
- Harbin v. United States, 250 F.3d 532 (7th Cir.) (discusses midtrial peremptory use and impact on trial fairness)
- Phelps v. Illinois, 211 Ill. 2d 1 (prohibits double enhancement by considering offense-inherent facts as aggravating)
- Heider v. People, 231 Ill. 2d 1 (court may affirm sentence despite improper factor if weight was insignificant)
- Walker v. People, 232 Ill. 2d 113 (explains plain error doctrine and burden on defendant)
- Saldivar v. People, 113 Ill. 2d 256 (permissible to consider manner of force when applying "serious harm" aggravator in certain contexts)
- Akins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398 (discusses proof required to establish purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection)
- Tyson v. Trigg, 50 F.3d 436 (7th Cir.) (substantive due process requires overall balance between prosecution and defense)