People v. Hardimon
77 N.E.3d 1184
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Hardimon was indicted for four counts of first-degree murder and one count of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (UPWF); parties stipulated that he had a prior Article 24 felony.
- Witnesses and forensic evidence placed a shooting outside Club Apollo early Feb 6, 2011; surveillance video and eyewitness testimony were inconclusive and did not identify the shooter.
- Police recovered a maroon coat in a Mitsubishi connected to the defendant; defendant told police in a recorded interview he had been in that vehicle outside the club but denied involvement in the shooting.
- The State played a redacted portion of a lengthy recorded interrogation at trial; defense counsel did not object to the redactions or move to further redact the later portions of the interview.
- A jury convicted Hardimon of first-degree murder and UPWF; he received consecutive sentences (80 years + 14 years).
- On appeal the Third District reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding trial counsel ineffective for failing to seek redaction of the highly prejudicial portions of the interrogation video; UPWF disposition was addressed but not required given the reversal on the ineffective-assistance ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to further redact interrogation video | State relied on full admitted video as relevant to defendant’s statements and credibility | Counsel should have sought redaction of the last two-thirds of the interview because those portions were irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative | Court: Counsel was ineffective; failure to move to redact prejudiced defendant and warrants reversal and remand for new trial |
| Admissibility of officers’ accusatory/opinion statements in the interview | Officer statements were context for defendant’s responses and routine interrogation tactics | Officer statements impermissibly vouched for guilt, inflamed jury, and had no probative value because defendant never confessed | Court: Many officer statements were irrelevant/ highly prejudicial and should have been excluded or redacted |
| Sufficiency of trial evidence connecting defendant to shooting | State argued circumstantial evidence (vehicle, coat, statements) supported conviction | Defendant argued no witness identified him as shooter; evidence inconclusive | Court: Evidence was circumstantial and weak; combined with prejudicial video, court had little confidence in verdict |
| Validity of UPWF conviction given predicate felony question | State relied on stipulated prior conviction and that it had not been vacated on appeal | Defendant argued predicate may be invalid/unconstitutional | Court: Did not need to resolve McFadden-based constitutional challenge; reversed UPWF on same ineffective-assistance grounds and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong standard)
- People v. Manning, 241 Ill. 2d 319 (applying Strickland in Illinois)
- People v. Ramsey, 239 Ill. 2d 342 (strong presumption of reasonable strategy for counsel)
- People v. Richardson, 189 Ill. 2d 401 (prejudice inquiry; unreliable result/fundamentally unfair)
- People v. Munoz, 398 Ill. App. 3d 455 (police vouching for guilt is reversible error)
- People v. Crump, 319 Ill. App. 3d 538 (officer testimony that defendant is guilty improper)
- People v. Patterson, 192 Ill. 2d 93 (relevancy and probative/prejudicial balancing for interrogation evidence)
- People v. Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d 92 (circumstantial evidence can support conviction but must inspire confidence in verdict)
- People v. Bowman, 335 Ill. App. 3d 1142 (police may use noncoercive interrogation tactics; distinguishes admissibility issues)
- United States v. Rutledge, 900 F.2d 1127 (7th Cir.) (permissible interrogation techniques may include playing on suspects’ fears)