People v. Miller, 216 N.E.3d 960

Defendant Rodney Miller was convicted after a second jury trial of aggravated possession of a stolen motor vehicle; he had previously had a conviction reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
The vehicle was a 1993 Oldsmobile that had been inoperable and parked on the street; owner Sabrina Wright reported it stolen after it disappeared.
Everett Myrick testified he bought the inoperable car from owner’s husband Ronald Abrams as scrap and, with defendant, transported it to mechanic Lawrence McKee who repaired it and gave defendant a key.
Abrams testified inconsistently: at the first trial he said he sold the car as junk; at the second trial he admitted he lied at the first trial and said he had been induced to lie for defendant.
Trial court refused defendant’s tendered mistake-of-fact (and related reasonable-belief) jury instructions, ruling any mistake was Myrick’s; the jury convicted and sentenced defendant to 15 years.
On appeal the court held there was at least some evidence supporting a mistake-of-fact instruction (defendant’s reliance on Myrick, corroborating repair testimony, and Abrams’s inconsistent testimony) and that the instruction error was not harmless; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing defendant’s mistake-of-fact jury instruction	No evidence defendant had the requisite belief; any mistake was Myrick’s; instruction would confuse jury	Some evidence supported mistake: Myrick purchased as scrap, McKee repaired car, Abrams’s inconsistent testimony; defendant could rely on Myrick so mistake attributable to defendant	Court: Error to refuse instruction; "some evidence" standard met; instruction should have been given
Whether any instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Evidence against defendant was strong; defendant didn’t testify; error harmless	Evidence was closely balanced; prior reversal; Abrams’s perjury admission undermined prosecution; error not harmless	Court: Error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; reversal and remand for new trial

People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (2007) (preservation rule for jury-instruction error requires tender and posttrial motion)
People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478 (2009) (State must show non-harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt)
People v. Jones, 175 Ill. 2d 126 (1997) (defendant entitled to instruction on theory of the case if there is some foundation in the evidence; defendant need not testify)
People v. Jones, 276 Ill. App. 3d 1006 (1995) (court’s role is to determine whether some evidence supports an instruction, not to weigh evidence)
People v. Lovejoy, 235 Ill. 2d 97 (2009) (trial court has discretion on instructions but must give instruction if supported by evidence)