People v. Jones
982 N.E.2d 202
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Jones was convicted of aggravated battery against Officer Gutierrez and sentenced to 4.5 years; appeal argues indictment amendment and ineffective assistance.
- Grand jury returned a three-count indictment naming Officer Acot; three counts were disarming, aggravated battery, and resisting a peace officer.
- On the day trial began, the State moved to amend the aggravated-battery count to name Gutierrez as victim due to a scrivener error.
- Defense argued the amendment was a material change, not a mere formal defect, and that it surprised and prejudiced trial strategy.
- Jury selection involved excusing a biased juror (Williams) for cause and replacing with a juror; Glees remained on the panel.
- During trial, witnesses testified about the confrontation, defendant testified, and surrebuttal was denied for Amanda; verdict upheld on aggravated battery against Gutierrez and acquittal on disarming.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amendment of indictment was formal or substantive | White/majority allow formal amendment; misidentified victim is formal. | Amendment broadened charge; changed essential element and victim; prejudice. | Amendment formal; no abuse of discretion |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to strike juror Glees | Glees could be impartial; defense strategy supported keeping him. | Glees biased in favor of police; removal warranted. | Not deficient; trial strategy support |
| Ineffective assistance for calling Amanda only in surrebuttal | Amanda would corroborate defense; promised testimony not called earlier. | Strategy to avoid bolstering State's weak case; not ineffective. | Strategy-based, not ineffective |
| Prejudice/cumulative error | No cumulative prejudice; defense secured acquittal on one count and strong cross-examination. | Multiple errors cumulatively prejudiced defense. | No prejudice; no cumulative error |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. White, 221 Ill.2d 1 (2006) (formal vs substantive amendment; discovery aids defense)
- People v. Jones, 53 Ill.2d 460 (1973) (victim misidentification may be formal amendment)
- People v. Ross, 395 Ill.App.3d 660 (2009) (multi-victim amendment; caution for sloppy amendments)
- People v. Shipp, 2011 IL App (2d) 100197 (2011) (surprise/prejudice tied to formal vs substantive amendments)
- People v. Metcalfe, 202 Ill.2d 544 (2002) (voir dire and potential bias as trial-strategy issue)
- People v. Manning, 241 Ill.2d 319 (2011) (voir dire evaluation and trial-strategy discretion)
- People v. Begay, 377 Ill.App.3d 417 (2007) (trial-strategy in juror non-removal case)
- People v. Wilborn, 2011 IL App (1st) 092802 (2011) (witness not called; strategic decision defense)
- People v. Bryant, 391 Ill.App.3d 228 (2009) (trial-strategy; abandoning promised testimony may be strategic)
- People v. York, 312 Ill.App.3d 434 (2000) (DNA/testing as strategic decision in defense)
- People v. Defyn, 222 Ill.App.3d 504 (1991) (prosecutor’s closing argument credibility bolstering)
- People v. Ford, 113 Ill.App.3d 659 (1983) (prosecutor's closing argument credibility bolstering)