People v. Henderson
2013 IL App (1st) 113294
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- On April 12, 2011, Chicago officers observed Jaquan Henderson near a group of youths on North Lotus Avenue; he fled into the gangway/backyard of 1422 North Lotus and threw a loaded .380 handgun over a fence. He was arrested; he admitted finding the gun and lacking a FOID card.
- Henderson was charged with six counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (aggravated UUW); the bench trial resulted in convictions on counts IV and V and an 18‑month probation sentence referencing only count IV.
- Count IV alleged possession of an uncased, loaded, immediately accessible firearm in violation of 720 ILCS 5/24‑1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A); count V alleged possession without a valid FOID in violation of 720 ILCS 5/24‑1.6(a)(2), (a)(3)(C).
- After briefing, the Illinois Supreme Court decided People v. Aguilar, holding subsection (a)(1), (a)(3)(A) facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment; the State conceded count IV could not stand.
- The appellate court considered whether (a)(3)(A)’s invalidation requires invalidation of the remaining aggravated‑UUW provisions (severability) and whether the FOID‑based subsection (a)(3)(C) is facially unconstitutional as applied to persons under 21.
- The court reversed the conviction under (a)(3)(A) but remanded for sentencing on count V (the FOID‑based aggravated UUW conviction), holding (a)(3)(C) remains constitutionally valid and severable from the invalidated provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Henderson was not an invitee at 1422 North Lotus | State: Officer testimony that defendant ran into 1422’s gangway/backyard while discarding the gun supports conviction | Henderson: State failed to disprove he was an invitee at 1422; evidence insufficient | Court relied on officer testimony; conviction as to count IV later reversed on constitutional grounds (see next rows) |
| Constitutionality of 720 ILCS 5/24‑1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) (ban on carrying loaded firearm outside home) | State: statute constitutional as a restriction; but conceded after Aguilar | Henderson: violates Second and Illinois constitutional right to bear arms outside the home | Following Aguilar, the court reversed conviction under (a)(3)(A) as facially unconstitutional |
| Severability and validity of FOID‑based factor 24‑1.6(a)(3)(C) | State: (a)(3)(C) (no valid FOID) is a reasonable, constitutional regulation and survives Aguilar; remand for sentencing on that count | Henderson: (a)(3)(C) is inseparable from invalid parts or is facially invalid (particularly for under‑21s) | Court held (a)(3)(C) is severable from (a)(3)(A) and constitutionally valid as applied; remanded for sentencing on count V |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (federal appellate decision recognizing right to bear arms outside the home and informing Illinois courts)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (Second Amendment incorporated against the states)
- People v. Zimmerman, 239 Ill. 2d 491 (Ill. 2010) (explains aggravated UUW elements and relationship between subsection (a) elements and (a)(3) factors)
- People v. Dixon, 91 Ill. 2d 346 (Ill. 1982) (appellate court may remand for sentencing on convictions not appealed when they were dependent on reversed convictions)