People v. McGath
2017 IL App (4th) 150608
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Marcus McGath was convicted by a jury of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance (cocaine) after a November 4, 2014 controlled buy; sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment.
- The buy was arranged via texts to a contact saved as "Katrina"; purchaser Coartney Barton testified McGath sold her crack cocaine at McGath’s residence while Katrina Ross (McGath’s girlfriend) was present. An audio recording and forensic testing (0.1 g cocaine) were admitted.
- Ross was listed as a potential defense witness the day before trial but was not subpoenaed; during trial Ross was present in the morning and then declined to testify (counsel said she might invoke the Fifth Amendment).
- After trial Ross executed a notarized affidavit claiming she (not McGath) handled the exchange; defense moved for a new trial and sought to call Ross or proffer her testimony. The trial court denied the motion and declined further testimony.
- On appeal McGath challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence, (2) ineffective assistance for not subpoenaing Ross, (3) failure to conduct a Krankel hearing, (4) denial of an offer of proof about Ross’s absence, and (5) double-enhancement at sentencing. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McGath) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence (Barton’s testimony, audio recording, forensic result) supports conviction | Testimony conflicted with the audio and circumstantial evidence pointed to Ross; no direct link of phone to McGath | Affirmed: viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational juror could convict; credibility and paralanguage were for the jury |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to subpoena Ross | Trial counsel reasonably declined to call a witness who indicated she would invoke the Fifth Amendment; record inadequate to resolve claim on direct appeal | Counsel was ineffective for not subpoenaing or calling Ross, who would have given exculpatory testimony | Declined to decide on direct appeal; claim better raised on postconviction petition because record is incomplete regarding counsel’s in-trial communications and strategy |
| Krankel hearing (court-appointed counsel review) | No Krankel trigger because defendant did not raise a pro se posttrial ineffective-assistance claim | Trial counsel’s posttrial concession of his own failure to call Ross required a Krankel inquiry | No Krankel required: Krankel applies only to pro se posttrial claims; trial court properly declined to sua sponte hold a Krankel hearing |
| Denial of offer of proof re: Ross’s absence | Offer of proof was unnecessary; posttrial affidavit explaining absence is irrelevant to why she did not testify at trial | Court should have allowed an offer of proof to explain Ross’s absence and preserve the issue | No reversible error: the court allowed a proffer that Ross would testify consistent with her affidavit; explanation of her posttrial affidavit is irrelevant to what she told counsel at trial; issue ties into ineffective-assistance claim better suited for collateral review |
| Double-enhancement at sentencing | Court’s sentencing commentary on societal harm from drugs was a proper consideration and not impermissible double enhancement | Court relied on harm inherent in the offense, thus impermissibly double-enhanced sentence | Forfeited and not plain-error; meritless in context — courts may comment on societal harm and may consider nature/circumstances without impermissible double enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181 (1984) (trial court must inquire into pro se claims of counsel ineffectiveness and appoint new counsel if allegations show possible neglect)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Veach, 2017 IL 120649 (2017) (ineffective-assistance claims sometimes better addressed in postconviction proceedings when the record is incomplete)
- People v. Hadden, 2015 IL App (4th) 140226 (2015) (deference to jury in interpreting audio-recording paralanguage)
- People v. Phelps, 211 Ill.2d 1 (2004) (prohibition on double enhancement: cannot use an element of the offense as an aggravating sentencing factor)
- People v. Human, 331 Ill. App.3d 809 (2002) (a party should not call a witness it reasonably believes will invoke the Fifth Amendment before the jury)