People v. McGhee
358 Ill. Dec. 46
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- McGhee was convicted of murder, attempted murder, and aggravated discharge of a firearm and pursued direct appeal before filing a postconviction petition.
- The postconviction petition alleged ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel.
- The circuit court dismissed at the second stage; the appellate court affirmed.
- Trial included an alibi defense via defendant’s wife’s grandmother, who placed him at home around the time of the crime.
- The defense highlighted evidence about defendant’s red 1995 Chevrolet Cutlass and related alibi materials, which pretrial discovery showed were questioned for validity, and the defense chose not to present that vehicle evidence at trial.
- The State’s discovery and defense strategy were central to evaluating the adequacy of trial counsel’s performance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to poll the jury on request was reversible error | McGhee argues the poll defect was plain error | McGhee contends the error warrants automatic reversal | Not reversible; plain-error second prong not satisfied; no preserved error; not structural. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to bolst er alibi defense | Alibi evidence was inadequately pursued | Counsel strategically chose not to introduce questionable vehicle evidence | No ineffective assistance; strategy and available evidence supported trial decisions. |
| Whether trial counsel erred by failing to object to lineup photo and witness background testimony | Identification taint claim due to photo shown alongside lineup | No taint; eyewitness identification already established in testimony | No ineffective assistance; no preserved error; procedural posture limits remedy. |
| Whether trial counsel erred by failing to present eyewitness reliability expert | Expert testimony on eyewitness identifications would help jury | Illinois law disfavors such expert testimony; strategic decision not to introduce | Not ineffective; Illinois precedent disfavors expert eyewitness reliability testimony. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging the sentence | Sentence excessive given youth and mitigating factors | Counsel should have filed a postsentencing motion | Not prejudicial; sentence within statutory range; no ineffective assistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rehberger, 73 Ill.App.3d 964 (1979) (jury polling right; unanimity principle)
- People v. Wheat, 383 Ill.App.3d 234 (2008) (trial court erred by not allowing poll; limited factual scope)
- Glasper v. Illinois, 234 Ill.2d 173 (2009) (Rule 431(b) not structural; harmless-error review guidelines)
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill.2d 598 (2010) (Rule 431(b) amended; second prong plain-error analysis)
- People v. Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 (1984) (Zehr principles in voir dire; Rule 431(b) context)
- People v. Enis, 139 Ill.2d 264 (1990) (expert eyewitness testimony disfavored; strategic decisions favored)