People v. Henderson
92 N.E.3d 501
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Aaron Henderson was tried for first-degree murder (accountability theory) for the December 18, 2013 killing of Derek Jackson; jury convicted him of murder under accountability and acquitted on principal theory.
- Key evidence: eyewitness Alyson Schippers (identified Henderson at scene), surveillance video near the victim’s house showing Henderson and companion, gunshot residue on jeans from Henderson’s residence, bullets/casings from scene matched same .40-caliber/10mm Glock-type firearm, DNA blood on $1 bill matched victim, and a recorded custodial interview/confession played for the jury.
- Defense presented Kamren Bolden, who testified that another person (McDuffie) pulled a gun and fired; Bolden previously lied to police but later recanted.
- During deliberations the jury twice requested to view audio/video evidence in the courtroom; on both occasions only a State’s Attorney office employee (Ms. Bernard) and a bailiff were present to operate equipment—defense counsel and defendant were not present and were unaware until after verdict.
- Henderson appealed, raising four issues: ex parte communications with jurors, allowing the jury to view evidence in presence of a State’s representative during deliberations, trial court’s failure to inquire into pro se ineffective-assistance claims, and sentencing claim. The appellate court found the second issue dispositive and reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex parte communications with jury during deliberations | No reversible error; any communications were routine and not prejudicial | Court engaged in improper ex parte contacts with jurors that could influence deliberations | Not reached (court reversed on other ground) |
| Jury viewed audio/video during deliberations in presence of State’s employee | Procedure was permissible; prior cases allowed viewing with parties present and no prejudice shown | Presence of State’s employee (without defense or judge) chilled deliberations and risked bias | Reversed: clear error and second-prong plain error (structural); new trial ordered |
| Trial court failed to preliminarily inquire into defendant’s pro se ineffective-assistance claims | No meaningful claim or waiver; counsel filed motions and court addressed them | Court was required to conduct preliminary inquiry into pro se allegations | Not reached due to reversal on evidentiary/procedure ground |
| Sentence (40 years) excessive/abuse of discretion | Sentence within statutory range and justified by aggravating factors | Sentence was excessive | Not reached due to reversal on evidentiary/procedure ground |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (presence of third parties during deliberations can risk chilling jury; reversal requires showing of prejudice)
- People v. Eppinger, 2013 IL 114121 (plain-error framework)
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (plain-error prongs described)
- People v. Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d 81 (trial court discretion to allow jury review of evidence)
- People v. Johnson, 2015 IL App (3d) 130610 (viewing video in courtroom with parties present not presumptively prejudicial)
- People v. McKinley, 2017 IL App (3d) 140752 (similar analysis on courtroom viewing; presence of parties reduces concern)
- People v. Rouse, 2014 IL App (1st) 121462 (no indicia of prejudice where jury viewed recording in courtroom and returned to deliberate)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (structural error standard; errors that erode integrity of judicial process)