People v. Jones
2016 IL App (1st) 141008
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Early morning Sept. 1, 2010: police executed a search warrant at 7701 S. Hoyne; officers announced themselves and breached the back door; gunfire injured three officers.
- Occupants included Antonio Jones, DeMario Thomas, Paris Banks, Leslie Kitchen, and Jones’s grandparents; an SKS rifle and drugs were recovered.
- Jones was tried under an accountability theory for three counts of attempted murder and three counts of aggravated battery with a firearm; convicted and sentenced to concurrent 23-year terms.
- Before trial Jones indicated he might assert self-defense/defense-of-others/defense-of-property and sought to introduce prior shooting at his home; the trial court limited such references and threatened counsel for trying to elicit them.
- During opening statement the State repeatedly labeled Jones a "criminal" despite defense objections and the court’s instruction to disregard.
- On appeal the court reversed and remanded for a new trial, principally because the State’s inflammatory opening remarks likely prejudiced the jury, and it held that an accountability defendant may present justified-use-of-force defenses based on his own beliefs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State’s repeated references to Jones as a “criminal” in opening required reversal | Characterization was permissible advocacy and comment on evidence; not reversible | Repeated, pejorative labeling before defense presented its case unfairly prejudiced jurors | Reversed: prosecutor’s repeated, baseless “criminal” labels in opening were improper and likely contributed to conviction; new trial ordered |
| Whether an accountability defendant can assert justified-use-of-force defenses (self-defense/defense of property/defense of others) | Trial court/State: accountability requires showing principal’s justification; accomplice cannot assert his own mistaken belief as justification for directing another to shoot | Jones: accountable defendants stand in accomplice’s shoes and may assert their own reasonable belief of necessity as a defense | Held: accountability defendant may present and argue justified-use-of-force defenses based on his own belief; trial court erred to bar such evidence/argument |
| Whether trial court complied with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) voir dire | State: court substantially complied; no reversible error | Jones: court’s phrasing (asking if jurors “understand and accept” rather than if any do not) failed to elicit acceptance as required | Not decided on merits (mooted by new trial); identified as issue likely to recur on remand |
| Whether sentencing court’s remarks and consideration of mitigation were proper | State: sentence within statutory range and discretionary | Jones: court ignored mitigating evidence and made derisive, biased comments about defendants who express concern for children | Not reached as a standalone reversible error (sentence moot after remand), but trial judge’s sarcastic, biased remarks condemned and remand ordered before a different judge |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pasch, 152 Ill. 2d 133 (commentary on prosecutor’s latitude in argument)
- People v. Johnson, 119 Ill. 2d 119 (impropriety of pejorative characterizations of defendant)
- People v. Deloney, 359 Ill. App. 3d 458 (criticizing derogatory labels in argument)
- People v. Flax, 255 Ill. App. 3d 103 (limits on inflammatory characterizations)
- People v. Weller, 123 Ill. App. 2d 421 (opening statement must not become argument)
- People v. Williams, 192 Ill. 2d 548 (grounds for reversal when argument exceeds bounds)
- People v. Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d 92 (standard for prejudice from improper remarks; de novo review)
- People v. Linscott, 142 Ill. 2d 22 (reversal required if improper remarks may have affected verdict)
- People v. Thomas, 22 Ill. App. 3d 854 (reversal where prosecutor labeled defendant a criminal before defendant presented his case)
- People v. Dennis, 181 Ill. 2d 87 (purpose of accountability doctrine and degree of culpability)
- People v. Lee, 213 Ill. 2d 218 (elements of self-defense)
- People v. Brown, 197 Ill. App. 3d 907 (accountable defendant stands in accomplice’s shoes re: defenses)
- People v. Hutter, 29 Ill. App. 3d 92 (self-defense available when shooter unaware victims were police)
- People v. Slabaugh, 323 Ill. App. 3d 723 (repeated improper remarks may not be cured by instruction)