People v. McBride
2012 IL App (1st) 100375
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- McBride indicted Sept. 21, 2007 for aggravated vehicular hijacking under 18-4(a)(3) with a handgun possession allegation.
- Post-2000 amendments distinguish firearm vs non-firearm dangers; preamended version did not make this distinction.
- Victim Criswell testified a gun was held to his forehead; injuries described as a deep bruise but not major medical treatment.
- Evidence included car recovery, fingerprints on the car, and lineups identifying McBride.
- Trial court instructed jury with a composite definition of dangerous weapon blending Black’s and armed-violence terms.
- Jury asked for the definition of dangerous weapon; court's response was contested as legally flawed and potentially prejudicial.
- Court convicted McBride; sentenced to 9.5 years; on appeal court affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded for limits on the preamended (a)(3) issue; mittimus later corrected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency under preamended (a)(3) | McBride armed with dangerous weapon under preamended statute. | Evidence did not prove dangerous weapon under preamended scope; may require vehicular hijacking conviction only. | Remand for a new trial on limited issue under preamended (a)(3). |
| Dangerous weapon standard | Gun could be dangerous per Ross if used as bludgeon or loaded/operable. | Dangerousness must be proven; per se dangerousness from firearm definition is improper. | Definitive dangerousness questions for jury; improper per se instruction requires remand. |
| Jury instruction and definition given | Composite definition aided jury clarity. | Definition misstates law by treating firearms as per se dangerous. | Erroneous instruction prejudicial; remand for new trial on limited issue. |
| Effect of jury’s request for definition | Court properly clarified the law. | Clarification misled and altered statutory interpretation. | Remand appropriate; preserve conviction for simple offense if needed. |
| Mittimus credit | Credit days should be adjusted to 883. | Credit calculation should reflect 883 days. | Mittimus corrected to 883 days; no remand needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ross, 229 Ill. 2d 255 (Ill. 2008) (dangerous weapon defined by use or potential to cause harm; not per se)
- People v. Robinson, 73 Ill. 2d 192 (Ill. 1978) (weapon may be dangerous if used as a bludgeon; jury fact question)
- People v. Skelton, 83 Ill. 2d 58 (Ill. 1980) (dangerous weapon categories and use in manner likely to cause injury)
- People v. Thorne, 352 Ill. App. 3d 1062 (Ill. App. 2004) (armed robbery framework; relevance to weapon categorization)
- Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d 63 (Ill. 2007) (proportionate penalties; constitutionality of sentencing enhancements)
- Washington, 2012 IL 107993 (Ill. 2012) (preamended vs amended statutes; consequences for charging strategy)
- Andrews, 364 Ill. App. 3d 253 (Ill. App. 2006) (anticipates Hauschild concerns about postamended statute validity)