Background

• Defendant Christopher Hardin was tried by bench on multiple counts arising from firing a gun toward John Sharp and toward a police vehicle occupied by two Chicago officers on April 16, 2008.
• Trial court convicted Hardin on two counts of aggravated discharge of a firearm in the direction of a vehicle known to be occupied by a peace officer and one count of aggravated discharge of a firearm; two related counts were merged or dismissed
• The officers testified they observed Hardin firing from a vacant lot toward Sharp and then at the pursuing police car, and Hardin fled, dropping his gun
• Detective Maas identified Sharp in a reverse lineup and Hardin gave statements about firing at Sharp and at the officers; Hardin testified inconsistently about his intent and knowledge of the vehicle
• The trial court concluded Hardin knew the vehicle was a police car and sentenced him to concurrent multi-year terms; on appeal, the convictions were challenged on issues of fair trial and one-act, one-crime
• The appellate court vacated one aggravated-discharge conviction but affirmed the rest; Salone dissented on the one-crime issue, arguing two convictions should stand

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• People v. Pryor, 372 Ill. App. 3d 422 (2007) (two convictions may lie from a single act when multiple victims defined by statute)
• People v. Leach, 2011 IL App (1st) 090339 (2011) (two convictions from single act where act directed at a person; injuries to multiple victims)
• People v. Butler, 64 Ill.2d 485 (1976) (two convictions upheld where directed against two persons under personal-theft statute)
• People v. Ruiz, 342 Ill. App. 3d 750 (2003) (convictions for multiple counts when directed at persons under separate statutes)
• People v. Lark, 127 Ill. App. 3d 927 (1984) (robbery multiple victims supports multiple convictions when act directed at persons)
• People v. Gard, 236 Ill. App. 3d 1001 (1992) (multiple victims treated for liability in single act)
• People v. Carter, 213 Ill.2d 295 (2004) (plain-error consideration for preserved/unpreserved issues)
• People v. Jones, 223 Ill.2d 569 (2006) (lenity principle in statutory interpretation)
• People v. Gutman, 2011 IL 110338 (2011) (statutory construction; interplay of subsections 3 and 4)
• People v. Anderson, 407 Ill. App. 3d 662 (2011) (preservation rules for appellate review)
• People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113 (2009) (plain-error framework applied)
• People v. Heiman, 286 Ill. App. 3d 102 (1996) (bias analysis after trial; need for objective impartiality)
• People v. McDaniels, 144 Ill. App. 3d 459 (1986) (prejudgment concerns )
• People v. Taylor, 357 Ill. App. 3d 642 (2005) (fair trial standard; unbiased trier of fact)
• People v. Miller, 238 Ill. 2d 161 (2010) (one-act, one-crime doctrine application)
• People v. Botruff, 212 Ill. 2d 166 (2004) (statutory interpretation; avoid superfluous language)