People v. Henderson, 92 N.E.3d 501

Defendant Aaron Henderson was tried for the December 18, 2013 shooting death of Derek Jackson; charged under both a principal theory and an accountability theory, and convicted under accountability.
Key evidence: eyewitness Alyson Schippers placed Henderson at the scene; surveillance video near the victim’s home showed Henderson with an associate; gunshot residue on jeans from Henderson’s home; cash with the victim’s blood was found among money seized from Henderson; ballistics tied most recovered casings/bullets to the same .40-caliber/10mm Glock-type weapon; a recorded custodial interview of Henderson was played.
Defense called Kamren Bolden, who testified that a third person (McDuffie) produced a gun and fired; Bolden admitted earlier lies to police.
During jury deliberations, jurors twice asked to review audio/video evidence. The court allowed the jury to view the materials in the courtroom while only a State’s Attorney’s office employee (Ms. Bernard) and a bailiff were present; defense counsel and defendant were not present or notified.
After deliberations the jury found Henderson guilty of first-degree murder under an accountability theory; the trial court sentenced him to 40 years’ imprisonment. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether allowing the jury to view evidence during deliberations in the presence of a State’s Office employee and bailiff deprived defendant of a fair trial	No reversible error; procedure was harmless or not invited	Presence of a state representative during deliberations chilled juror discussion and risked prejudice; plain error review applies	Reversible plain error: presence of State employee (without notice/defense present) during evidence review was structural and required a new trial
Whether ex parte communications between court and jury occurred during deliberations	Court handled jury questions appropriately	Ex parte communications (court instructing jury in absence of counsel) were improper	Court’s isolated instruction about a missing instruction was noted but not dispositive; main reversal based on State-representative presence
Whether the trial court should have preliminarily inquired into defendant’s pro se ineffective-assistance claims filed posttrial	No need because claims were untimely or meritless	Trial court erred by not conducting preliminary inquiry into pro se claims	Not reached (court reversed on other grounds)
Whether the 40-year sentence was an abuse of discretion	Sentence within statutory range and supported by aggravation	Sentence excessive	Not reached (court reversed on other grounds)

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (presence of third parties during deliberations may risk chilling juror discussion; prejudice must be shown)
People v. Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d 81 (trial court has discretion to permit juror review of evidence)
People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (structural errors erode integrity of judicial process)
People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (framework for plain-error review)