People v. Phillips
2014 IL App (4th) 120695
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- On Sept. 7, 2006, Phillips and Shaunessy Grimes went to confront a woman (targeted because Phillips’ ex-girlfriend had been injured earlier). Grimes brought a single-shot .22 rifle as backup.
- The pair hid in an alley, observed a large crowd at the target location, and Phillips decided not to proceed with the attack because he feared being jumped.
- While Phillips waited, Grimes walked out of view and fired one shot toward the crowd, killing bystander Jeremiah Maclin with a bullet to the back of the head.
- Phillips fled with Grimes, helped dispose of the rifle in the Sangamon River, initially denied involvement, and later confessed; Grimes told Phillips to “stick to the script.”
- After a prior jury conviction was vacated on a confrontation-related evidentiary error, Phillips was convicted at a bench retrial of first-degree murder and aggravated possession of a weapon by a felon and sentenced to concurrent prison terms.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Phillips’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grimes’ shooting was an independent act not in furtherance of the original plan | Phillips and Grimes formed a common criminal design to confront/retaliate; any act in furtherance of that design is attributable to Phillips | The shooting was an independent, unplanned act by Grimes | Court held the shooting was within the common-design rule and attributable to Phillips |
| Whether Phillips withdrew before the shooting so as to negate accountability | No — Phillips remained part of the enterprise, fled, helped dispose of the rifle, and concealed the crime | Phillips claimed he intended to leave and momentarily stepped back, so he effectively withdrew | Court held withdrawal not established: any brief retreat was negated by compliance with Grimes, flight, concealment, and weapon disposal |
| Whether the State had to prove Phillips shared Grimes’ specific intent to kill | State must prove intent to promote/facilitate a crime; shared specific intent as to the resultant crime is not required under common-design accountability | Phillips argued State needed to prove he specifically intended Grimes to fire the rifle or to kill | Court held shared intent is not required in common-design cases; proof of intent to promote/facilitate the planned crime suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- Kessler v. People, 57 Ill.2d 493 (discusses common-design accountability; one who aids in plan is liable for acts in furtherance of that plan)
- Tarver v. People, 381 Ill. 411 (upheld accountability where group armed themselves for retaliation; a shot by one is a shot by all)
- Brown v. People, 26 Ill.2d 308 (withdrawal must be timely and wholly detach defendant from the enterprise)
- Perez v. People, 189 Ill.2d 254 (factors relevant to accountability include presence, flight, post-offense conduct, and failure to report)
- Houston v. People, 258 Ill. App.3d 364 (explains that proving intent to promote/facilitate a crime suffices to attribute other acts done in furtherance)