People v. Henson
91 N.E.3d 941
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant James R. Henson was indicted for two counts of burglary (entry of MJ Electric trucks intending to commit theft), possession of burglary tools, and related offenses arising from events on May 31, 2014; theft and other counts were nol-prossed before trial.
- Police found defendant in bushes near the scene with a bicycle and buckets; nearby were buckets and new brass/copper fittings identified by MJ Electric as belonging to its trucks, which had been entered and had locks cut.
- Officers recovered various tools on defendant and in the vicinity (bolt cutters, wire cutters, knives, flashlights, tape); no fingerprints or security video were obtained and no gravel was found on defendant’s shoes.
- Defense presented testimony that defendant used a bike for work, carried tools for roofing, and claimed he obtained the fittings from a co-worker or simply found them; prosecution argued the indictment alleged intent to commit theft inside the vehicles.
- The trial court denied defense-requested jury instruction that theft be submitted as a lesser included offense of burglary (court applied the abstract-elements test rather than the charging-instrument test).
- Jury convicted on two burglary counts and possession of burglary tools; defendant argued on appeal that the court erred in refusing the theft instruction. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial based on the instructional error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether theft is a lesser included offense of burglary and whether the jury should have been instructed on it | State: theft not included because theft was not charged (or possession element not alleged); lower court found abstract-elements test excluded theft | Henson: charging instrument (which alleged entry with intent to commit theft) and the evidence permitted a rational jury to convict of theft but acquit of burglary, so theft instruction required | Reversed: trial court erred by using abstract-elements test; under charging-instrument approach indictment alleged theft sufficiently and evidence supported giving theft as lesser included offense |
| Adequacy of trial court inquiry into defendant’s pro se posttrial ineffective-assistance claims | State: trial court procedures adequate (implicit) | Henson: trial court failed adequate inquiry into pro se claims | Not reached (court declined to address because instructional error was dispositive) |
| Entitlement to $5/day credit against fines for presentencing custody | State: (implicit) credit not applicable or properly calculated | Henson: entitled to credit for time in presentencing custody | Not reached (court declined to address) |
| Whether failure to give lesser-included instruction is subject to harmless-error review | State: any error harmless because evidence overwhelming | Henson: instruction error was reversible | Held: Failure to give lesser-included instruction is reversible error and not subject to harmless-error analysis (court relied on precedent rejecting harmless-error for such failures) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Buress, 274 Ill. App. 3d 164 (Ill. App. Ct.) (evidence supporting theft after a burglary supported giving theft instruction under charging-instrument approach)
- People v. Chandler, 278 Ill. App. 3d 212 (Ill. App. Ct.) (refused theft instruction where defendant’s role was alleged to occur after completion of burglary — court here disagreed with Chandler’s reasoning)
- People v. Kolton, 219 Ill. 2d 353 (Ill. 2006) (describes charging-instrument method for lesser-included analysis)
- People v. Hamilton, 179 Ill. 2d 319 (Ill. 1997) (indictment alleging entry with intent to commit theft implies intent to obtain unauthorized control)
- People v. Landwer, 166 Ill. 2d 475 (Ill. 1995) (distinguishes when alleged alternative crimes are separate incidents rather than lesser-included offenses)
- People v. Blan, 392 Ill. App. 3d 453 (Ill. App. Ct.) (failure to give lesser-included instruction not subject to harmless-error review)