People v. Hunt
2016 IL App (2d) 140786
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Demond L. Hunt was charged with two counts of armed robbery and one count of aggravated battery arising from a November 27, 2013 robbery of an apartment complex office; a separate weapons charge was severed.
- Victims described a masked black male with a small black revolver who took a purse (containing an engagement ring) and a cell phone; victims later identified property recovered by police as theirs.
- Co-defendant/witness Mariah Romero (Hunt’s on‑/off partner and pregnant by him) negotiated a plea deal: the armed-robbery charge against her would be dismissed if she testified truthfully and she would plead to obstructing justice (conditional discharge); she gave multiple inconsistent statements but ultimately identified Hunt as the robber and placed his belongings and a gun in her apartment.
- Police recovered Keller’s engagement ring in Hunt’s pocket when he was booked eight days after the robbery and recovered a cell phone and a gun from Romero’s apartment; officers also found Hunt’s identification and debit cards in Romero’s residence.
- Jury convicted Hunt of two counts of armed robbery and aggravated battery; trial court merged counts and sentenced him to 23 years’ imprisonment. Hunt appealed on sufficiency and ineffective-assistance grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence (identity) | State: Romero’s testimony plus corroborating circumstantial and physical evidence (ring in Hunt’s pocket, phone and gun in Romero’s apt, Hunt’s possessions there, victim IDs) establishes identity beyond a reasonable doubt. | Hunt: Romero was an accomplice who lied repeatedly and had a strong incentive to implicate him; other witnesses only described a generic black male and police investigation was limited; ring discovery is suspect and evidence is insufficient. | Affirmed: Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational jury could find Hunt guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because Romero’s ID was corroborated by physical evidence and other testimony. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to tender accomplice-witness jury instruction (IPI 3.17) | State: Failure to tender the instruction was objectively unreasonable but harmless because there was corroborating evidence, jury received credibility and prior-inconsistency instructions, and parties repeatedly attacked Romero’s credibility. | Hunt: Omission prejudiced him because the case depended heavily on an accomplice’s testimony; without it the case was closely balanced and lacked direct ID or physical linkage. | Affirmed: Court found no Strickland prejudice—corroboration, jury instructions on credibility and inconsistent statements, and both parties’ emphasis on Romero’s bias meant no reasonable probability of a different result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- People v. Ash, 102 Ill. 2d 485 (Ill. 1984) (accomplice testimony must be viewed with caution when witness seeks leniency)
- People v. Wilson, 66 Ill. 2d 346 (Ill. 1977) (accomplice testimony promised immunity may be insufficient to support conviction without other corroboration)
- People v. Housby, 84 Ill. 2d 415 (Ill. 1981) (permissive inference from recent and exclusive possession of stolen property)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. McCallister, 193 Ill. 2d 63 (Ill. 2000) (failure to tender accomplice‑witness instruction requires showing of prejudice considering corroboration and jury instructions)