People v. McKinney
2011 IL App (1st) 100317
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- McKinney was convicted of first-degree murder in 1991 for a gang-related shooting; codefendant Wilkins pled guilty to the same murder in 1995.
- McKinney was arrested in 2007 while serving a federal sentence; charges for two counts of first-degree murder filed in 2007.
- In 2009 the State sought a 30-day extension beyond the speedy-trial term to locate a material witness, Jackson; the court granted the extension after finding due diligence.
- Jackson and Finley testified; grand jury transcripts from 1991 were admitted; Wilkins testified for the State denying McKinney’s presence at the scene.
- Defendant pursued Krankel proceedings in 2009; court declined to appoint new counsel after a Krankel hearing.
- In 2009 the trial court sentenced McKinney to 30 years to be served consecutively to a federal sentence; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 30-day speedy-trial extension was proper | McKinney argues the State failed due diligence locating Jackson and the extension was error. | McKinney contends extension violated 120-day limit and should lead to dismissal if error. | Extension upheld; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether defense counsel's opening remark caused ineffective assistance | State claims remark was harmless; defense counsel’s remark was inadvertent. | Remark deprived McKinney of effective representation and prejudiced trial. | No ineffective assistance; no prejudice shown. |
| Whether postarrest silence evidence was improperly admitted | State advanced evidence of postarrest silence as substantive | Silence should be suppressed or limited; not admitted to bolster credibility. | Preserved issues lack prejudice; plain error analysis not satisfied; no reversal on this basis. |
| Whether closing arguments misstated law and bolstered prior inconsistent statements | State properly explained prior inconsistent statements and their credibility. | Closing improperly bolstered these statements and misstated law. | Any error did not prejudice defendant; no reversal on plain-error grounds. |
| Whether admission of Wilkins’ guilty-plea evidence and references at opening/closing was proper | Evidence and references were admissible to show credibility and context. | Improper to use Wilkins’ plea with related references to bolster the State’s case. | Admission/referencing found permissible; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Exson, 384 Ill. App. 3d 794 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (due-diligence standard for speedy-trial extensions)
- People v. Gray, 326 Ill. App. 3d 906 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion review for Speedy Trial Act extensions)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (Ill. 2005) (forfeiture and plain-error considerations for trial issues)
- People v. Gay, 376 Ill. App. 3d 796 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007) (plain-error doctrine in speedy-trial and related claims)
- People v. White, 2011 IL 109689 (Ill. 2011) (closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain-error and prejudice evaluation)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard (performance and prejudice))
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (Ill. 1984) (procedures for appointing new counsel on ineffective-assistance claims)
- Craig v. People, 334 Ill. App. 3d 426 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (recanted testimony admissibility under section 115-10.1)