People v. James
2017 IL App (1st) 143036
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Samuel James was charged after police chased him, he discarded a handgun, and later spat out a knotted bag with tablets that tested positive for BZP; charged with armed violence (possession of BZP while armed), possession of a controlled substance, and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW).
- Voir dire: the court read charges including the firearm counts and asked general Rule 431(b) questions about crime victimization, relationships with officials, and ability to be impartial; defense asked whether the court asked about strong feelings about guns but did not proffer specific question; several jurors disclosed gun-related experiences and two were peremptorily struck; one juror (Dr. Samarel) was excused for cause after in camera questioning.
- Trial evidence: Officer Lara testified James fled after making eye contact with officers, kept his hand in his coat, tossed a blue steel handgun, and that James spat out a bag with tablets; chemist testified tablets were BZP; certified FOID search showed no card for James.
- Closing/rebuttal: prosecutors argued flight showed consciousness of guilt and responded to defense suggestion officers lied by invoking common-sense observations about armed violence in Chicago; some remarks were objected to and the court sustained/struck portions and repeatedly instructed jury that argument is not evidence.
- Verdict and sentence: jury convicted James on all counts; trial court sentenced him to 15 years (armed violence) plus 3 years MSR, and concurrent 3-year terms on the lesser counts; the State conceded the lesser counts should merge into armed violence but mittimus listed all convictions.
- Posttrial motions: James argued voir dire was inadequate re: feelings about guns, and that prosecutorial remarks denied a fair trial; he also sought 303 days presentence credit for sanitation work performed in custody; court denied the motion and conditioned the credit on DOC eligibility but did not reflect that order on the written mittimus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (James) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by not asking specific gun-feelings questions in voir dire | Court’s general Rule 431(b) questioning and follow-ups created reasonable assurance prejudice would be uncovered; specific questioning not required | Failure to ask specific questions about feelings toward guns prevented uncovering hidden bias given high local publicity about gun violence | No abuse of discretion; general questions plus disclosure of charges and crime-victim questions were adequate to discover bias |
| Whether prosecutor’s closing/rebuttal remarks denied a fair trial (misstating law and appealing to fear of gun violence) | Remarks were fair argument and/or cured by timely objections, strikes, and jury instructions; isolated comments did not materially prejudice verdict | Prosecutor improperly used flight as proof of guilt and invoked fears about Chicago violence to inflame jury | No reversible error; flight can support an inference of consciousness of guilt and improper remarks were isolated and cured by rulings and instructions |
| Whether convictions for possession and AUUW must be vacated under one-act, one-crime rule | State conceded lesser counts merge into armed violence; only more serious offense should stand | Multiple convictions punished for same physical act | Convictions for possession and AUUW vacated; mittimus corrected to reflect single armed-violence conviction and sentence |
| Whether defendant is entitled to 303 days presentence credit for county sanitation work | Trial court intended to order conditional credit "if eligible"; eligibility is DOC determination | Argues trial court failed to order the 303 days on mittimus | Mittimus amended to reflect 303 days presentence credit, subject to DOC eligibility (oral pronouncement controls) |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (constitutional right to impartial jury)
- People v. Strain, 194 Ill. 2d 467 (need for specific voir dire follow-up when hidden bias on central issue is likely)
- People v. Encalado, 2017 IL App (1st) 142548 (discussed re: voir dire on controversial subject)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (flight can be suggestive of wrongdoing and support reasonable suspicion/inference of consciousness of guilt)
- People v. Peeples, 155 Ill. 2d 422 (voir dire sufficiency assessed by whether procedures create reasonable assurance prejudice would be discovered)
- People v. Artis, 232 Ill. 2d 156 (one-act, one-crime rule; vacate lesser offense)
- People v. Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d 92 (standard for evaluating prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument)
- People v. Runge, 234 Ill. 2d 68 (isolated improper comments less likely to require reversal)
- People v. Harris, 52 Ill. 2d 558 (flight as circumstantial evidence of guilt)