People v. Manning
2017 IL App (2d) 140930
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Arthur Manning was retried for the 2008 stabbing death of Naromi Mannery; following a second jury trial he was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 25 years. A prior conviction had been reversed for failure to instruct on self-defense.
- The jury was instructed on first-degree murder, and on second-degree murder based on statutory mitigating factors (unreasonable belief in need of self-defense and mutual combat-provocation). The instructions required unanimity for any verdict.
- During deliberations the jury asked: if the vote on a mitigating factor is not unanimous, does the verdict "revert" to first-degree murder? The court proposed answering only that the verdict must be unanimous and to continue deliberating; defense counsel agreed to that response.
- The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of first-degree murder. Defense requested the jury be polled specifically whether each juror found a mitigating factor; the court instead used the standard polling question whether the verdict was each juror’s verdict and refused the specific polling.
- Defendant argued on appeal that (1) the court erred by failing to directly answer the jury’s question about nonunanimity of the mitigating factor, and (2) the court abused its discretion by refusing to poll jurors on whether they found a mitigating factor. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Manning’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant may challenge the court’s non-specific answer to the jury’s question about nonunanimous votes on a mitigating factor | Defendant agreed to court’s response, so invited error bars review | Court’s answer failed to resolve jury confusion and should be reviewable | Court: invited-error doctrine applies; Manning cannot challenge the court’s chosen response because counsel agreed to it |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to poll jurors about whether each found a mitigating factor | Standard polling was sufficient to protect defendant’s polling right | Specific polling was needed because jury question showed confusion over how split votes on mitigating factors would affect verdict | Court: abuse of discretion — refusal to ask the specific question undermined confidence in the verdict; remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Detention of Swope, 213 Ill. 2d 210 (party who consents to court action cannot later claim error)
- People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d 209 (invited-error doctrine bars challenge to procedure agreed to at trial)
- People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1 (defendant cannot attack trial response agreed to by counsel)
- People v. Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d 81 (purpose of polling includes detecting juror coercion; clarify juror intent)
- People v. Raue, 236 Ill. App. 3d 948 (similar jury question; polling on first-degree verdict upheld where defendant did not request different polling)
- People v. Kellogg, 77 Ill. 2d 524 (trial court has discretion over form of polling question)