People v. Leach
351 Ill. Dec. 855
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Nicole White was killed during a November 2006 shooting incident; Corey Clay, acting for Leach, was involved in drug sales when a customer fled with drugs after Nicole lent him cocaine.
- Defendant Ronald Leach intervened, leading to a physical altercation in which Nicole sprayed mace and defendant defended himself; later, a knife was recovered and Nicole retrieved mace and sprayed again.
- Defendant and associates confronted Nicole again; during the confrontation, Leach drew and fired a handgun, striking Nicole in the chest and killing her, with at least one other shot directed toward the group.
- Leach was charged with first-degree murder (Nicole White), and attempted first-degree murder and aggravated discharge of a firearm (Anthony White); he claimed self-defense.
- The jury was given a modified IPI instruction for aggravated discharge of a firearm; during deliberations the court replaced the instruction to remove the victim’s name, replacing it with 'another person'.
- Leach was convicted of second-degree murder and aggravated discharge of a firearm; he was sentenced to 12 years and 6 years respectively, and a $200 DNA analysis fee was imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether replacing the instruction after deliberations violated closing argument rights | Leach argues the court added a new theory post-deliberations. | Leach contends the substitution altered theory and infringed rights. | Not error; no new theory introduced; closing argument rights not violated. |
| Whether conviction for second-degree murder and aggravated discharge violates one-act, one-crime | Leach asserts dual convictions for single act against Nicole. | Leach contends the instruction change broadened victims, creating a single act problem. | No one-act, one-crime violation; multiple victims (Nicole and another) support separate acts. |
| Whether the $200 DNA analysis fee was properly imposed | State maintains the fee is mandatory for felons not already in DNA database. | Marshall voided fee where defendant already was in the DNA database. | Fee vacated; Marshall controls; fee not applicable where defendant already registered. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Millsap, 189 Ill.2d 155 (2000) (court may answer jury questions but cannot inject new theories after deliberations)
- People v. Collins, 214 Ill.2d 206 (2005) (victim name is surplassage; not an essential element)
- People v. De Kosta, 132 Ill.2d 691 (1971) (accomplice vs. principal liability elements differ)
- People v. Gray, 346 Ill.App.3d 989 (2004) (trial court must not misstate the law in answering questions)
- People v. Childs, 159 Ill.2d 217 (1994) (guides when trial court should answer jury questions)
- People v. Pryor, 372 Ill.App.3d 422 (2007) (waiver and plain-error considerations for multi-conviction claims)
- People v. Grover, 93 Ill.App.3d 877 (1981) (one-act, one-crime constraints depend on multiple victims)
- People v. Nunez, 236 Ill.2d 488 (2010) (plain-error review framework for nonpreserved claims)
- People v. Marshall, 242 Ill.2d 285 (2011) (DNA analysis fee applies only to those not already registered)