People v. Henderson
2016 IL App (1st) 142259
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- On June 24, 2009 a drive-by shooting killed 9‑year‑old Chastity Turner and wounded Andre Turner and Joe Walker; a stolen green 1995 Oldsmobile van was recovered at an alley a few blocks away.
- Defendant Ronald Henderson and codefendants Kevin Stanley and Davionne Whitfield were indicted; Whitfield was severed and tried separately; Henderson and Stanley were tried jointly.
- No physical evidence (fingerprints or DNA) linked Henderson to the shooting; State relied chiefly on three eyewitnesses (Andre Turner, Julius Davis, Tawanda Sterling) who had known Henderson previously and later identified him as the van’s driver.
- Detectives conducted multiple photo arrays and lineups over weeks; one detective testified he issued an investigative alert after a non‑testifying witness viewed a photo array.
- Ballistics showed multiple calibers at the scene; some recovered firearms were excluded as the murder weapon; some other individuals (e.g., Gerald Lauderdale, Christopher Cannon) were investigated and cleared.
- Jury convicted Henderson of first‑degree murder (Chastity) and two counts of attempted first‑degree murder; he was sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 100 years. Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Eyewitness IDs (three witnesses who knew Henderson) and circumstantial proof support conviction | IDs were delayed, views were limited/obstructed, witnesses had motive to fabricate (gang rivalry) | Evidence sufficient; reviewing court defers to jury credibility findings and views evidence in State’s favor |
| Admission of detective’s testimony about an investigative alert based on a non‑testifying witness | Testimony described investigative steps, not offered for truth; admissible and non‑testimonial for confrontation clause | Testimony was hearsay and violated confrontation rights because it referred to a nontestifying witness’s ID | Admissible as part of investigation or, if error, harmless beyond reasonable doubt given three in‑court IDs |
| Admission of evidence about other guns, investigated persons, and gang context | Evidence relevant to motive, investigation thoroughness, and eliminating alternative suspects | Evidence was irrelevant and highly prejudicial (guns not linked to murder; gang evidence inflammatory) | Evidence relevant to motive and the investigatory narrative; admission not erroneous and not plain error |
| Joint trial with codefendant Stanley and jury instructions/closing argument challenges | Joint trial and some prosecutorial remarks improperly conflated defendants and inflamed jury; some IPI instructions should be modified in joint trial | Trial court properly denied requested modifications; defense invited joinder and prosecutorial remarks were within permissible response range | Joinder proper (defendant requested severance only from Whitfield), invited‑error bars relief; IPI instructions and most challenged remarks not reversible error; prosecutors’ comments were not substantially prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Collins, 106 Ill.2d 237 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional sufficiency standard for conviction)
- People v. Wheeler, 226 Ill.2d 92 (standard re: prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments; review and prejudice analysis)
- People v. Stechly, 225 Ill.2d 246 (harmless‑error test for constitutional evidentiary error)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill.2d 551 (plain‑error doctrine)