People v. Hayes, 949 N.E.2d 182

Willie Hayes was convicted by jury of first degree murder and concealment of a homicidal death and sentenced to consecutive terms of 36 and 4 years.
Defendant challenged the trial court’s refusal to instruct involuntary manslaughter and challenged a rebuttal closing argument by the State.
Hayes sought review of potential Rule 431(b) instructional defects and argued his sentence and presentence credit were improper.
Evidence included Hayes’s multiple changing accounts of Nicole Boyd’s death, the autopsy showing multiple stab/incise wounds, and forensic testimony linking Hayes to the knife.
The State presented Nicole Boyd’s mother’s victim-impact testimony and Hayes’s prior delinquency for vehicular hijacking.
The mittimus and credit calculations were later corrected to reflect presentencing credit of 1,943 days, excluding the day of sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Involuntary manslaughter instruction required?	Hayes argues recklessness supports instruction.	State contends no evidence of recklessness.	No reversible error; not reckless under Di Vincenzo factors.
Rebuttal closing argument improper?	Prosecutor’s remark urged first-degree murder verdict.	Argument unfairly prejudicial and improper.	Harmless error; isolated brief remark not outcome-determinative.
Rule 431(b) plain error review warranted?	Trial court violated 431(b) admonishment requirements.	Issue should be reviewed for plain error.	Procedural default preserved; no plain error shown; no reversal.
Sentence at issue was excessive?	Court failed to balance rehabilitation against retribution.	Sentence should be reduced for mitigating factors.	No abuse of discretion; court balanced aggravation and mitigation.
Presentence credit properly calculated?	Credit should total 1,944 days including arrest date.	Should be 1,943 days per mittimus and Williams guidance.	Mittimus corrected to 1,943 days; day of sentencing excluded.

People v. Di Vincenzo, 183 Ill.2d 239 (1998) (defines recklessness for involuntary manslaughter and factors for relief)
People v. Wheeler, 226 Ill.2d 92 (2007) (standard for reviewing improper closing arguments under Rule 431(b))
People v. Blue, 189 Ill.2d 99 (2000) (conflicts in standard for evaluating closing-argument error)
People v. Cisewski, 118 Ill.2d 163 (1987) (harmless-error approach to prosecutorial misconduct in closing)
People v. Runge, 234 Ill.2d 68 (2009) (closing argument review; brief isolated remarks may be harmless)
People v. Thompson, 238 Ill.2d 598 (2010) (Rule 431(b) admonishments; plain-error framework)
People v. Herron, 215 Ill.2d 167 (2005) (plain-error considerations and preservation principles)
People v. Coleman, 166 Ill.2d 247 (1995) (rehabilitation vs. seriousness in sentencing discretion)
People v. Williams, 239 Ill.2d 503 (2011) (presentence credit; mittimus date and computation guidance)