People v. McLaurin
32 N.E.3d 94
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- On January 9, 2008 Demarlon Jernigan was shot and later died; Markell McLaurin was charged with first‑degree murder and a retrial followed after a hung jury.
- A key defense alibi witness, Timothy Williams, was not produced at either trial; defense counsel said Timothy was out‑of‑state, communicated by phone, but would not disclose his location and never appeared.
- State witnesses (Jackson, Bass, and Marlon Williams) offered identification or prior statements implicating McLaurin; Marlon recanted at trial but his signed prior written statement and grand‑jury testimony were admitted and given to the jury unredacted.
- Defense objected to portions of Marlon’s written statement (opinion language and reference that defendant “carries different types of guns”); the court refused redaction so jury could assess authenticity; the contested phrase was not read aloud but remained in the document for deliberations.
- McLaurin raised pro se ineffective‑assistance claims at posttrial; this court remanded for a fuller Krankel inquiry into counsel’s efforts to secure Timothy. On remand the trial court again found counsel diligent and denied relief; McLaurin appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (McLaurin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to present Timothy Williams at retrial | Counsel was not deficient because Timothy’s whereabouts were unknown and counsel made reasonable efforts; the Witness Attendance Act could not be used when location was unknown | Timothy would have testified he did not see McLaurin at the scene; counsel failed to subpoena or otherwise secure him for the second trial | Court: No ineffective assistance — counsel’s efforts were reasonable, Timothy could not be located, Krankel inquiry sufficient |
| 2) Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to or redacting opinion language in Marlon’s prior statement/grand jury testimony (e.g., “you stretched buddy” meaning) | The phrase was admissible lay opinion and prior inconsistent statement; objections would have been futile | The phrase was inadmissible opinion/hearsay and prejudicial; counsel should have sought redaction | Court: No ineffective assistance — statement admissible under section 115‑10.1 and Ill. R. Evid. 701; counsel not deficient for failing to raise losing objection |
| 3) Whether giving jurors the unredacted prior written statement (reference that defendant “carries different types of guns”) admitted improper other‑crimes evidence | Even if referenced, the phrase was not proof of other crimes and was admissible for purposes other than propensity; any error harmless given strong eyewitness IDs | The gun‑possession language was other‑crimes evidence and highly prejudicial; should have been redacted and limiting instruction given | Court: Not other‑crimes evidence as presented; alternatively harmless error because multiple eyewitness IDs were strong |
| 4) Whether voir dire violated Ill. S. Ct. R. 431(b) (Zehr admonitions) | The court properly informed jurors of the four principles and elicited willingness to follow them; any phrasing issue is forfeited and not plain error | Court conflated/phrased questions so jurors were not each asked if they both understood and accepted each Zehr principle; this violated Rule 431(b) | Court: Error occurred (following Thompson/Lampley) but not plain error — evidence was not closely balanced (overwhelming eyewitness ID), so no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (trial court duty to inquire into pro se ineffective‑assistance claims)
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (Rule 431(b) requires questioning whether venire both understands and accepts Zehr principles)
- People v. Williams, 147 Ill. 2d 173 (counsel not deficient for failing to pursue witness who cannot be located)
- People v. Evans, 209 Ill. 2d 194 (applies Strickland standard in Illinois)
- People v. Holveck, 141 Ill. 2d 84 (lay witness opinion admissibility context)
- People v. Gaultney, 174 Ill. 2d 410 (presumption trial judge knows and follows law)
- People v. Nieves, 193 Ill. 2d 513 (harmless‑error analysis for improper other‑crimes evidence)
- People v. Mercado, 397 Ill. App. 3d 622 (no duty to make losing objections)