People v. Reese
102 N.E.3d 126
| Ill. | 2017Background
- People charged Reese with aggravated vehicular hijacking (Class X) among other offenses; issue whether taking requires dispossession or can be satisfied by control exercised through force; appellate court held taking required dispossession; Illinois Supreme Court overrules; case involves Reese’s pro se conduct, shackling, and evidence on motive (murder conviction) and prior conviction used for impeachment; trial included evidence and implied necessity defense; verdicts included aggravated vehicular hijacking, vehicular invasion, attempted armed robbery, and escape; extended-term sentences challenged as improper; one-act, one-crime issue vacates vehicular invasion if aggravated hijacking affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Taking element of vehicular hijacking | State: taking includes controlling the vehicle by force; dispossession not required | Reese: requires actual physical dispossession from driver | Taking may include control by force; dispossession not required; overrules McCarter/McCarter-like view. |
| Shackling during jury selection | State: shackling acknowledged but harmless in context | Shackling violated due process and Rule 430 procedures | Shackling during voir dire was error but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given facts. |
| Waiver of counsel under Rule 401(a) | Waiver valid; admonitions adequate to show knowing waiver | Waiver defective due to sentencing consecution details not explained | Waiver valid; no plain error requiring reversal. |
| One-act, one-crime with vehicular invasion | Convictions for aggravated vehicular hijacking and vehicular invasion permitted | Double punishment from same act | Vehicular invasion vacated under one-act, one-crime rule. |
| Extended-term sentences on unrelated offenses | All extended-term sentences appropriate given conduct | Extended-terms improper for lesser offenses | Reduce lesser offenses to nonextended maximums; affirm extended-term for the most serious offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. People, 154 Ill. 2d 489 (Ill. 1992) (taking of a vehicle requires dispossession from the owner; force or threat is essential; Strickland controls the taking element for robbery, not vehicular hijacking.)
- People v. McCarter, 2011 IL App (1st) 092864 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2011) (applies Strickland logic to vehicular hijacking; treats large control as not dispossession.)
- People v. Pearse, 2017 IL 121072 (Ill. 2017) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning and legislative intent; rule against absurd results.)
- People v. Bradford, 2016 IL 118674 (Ill. 2016) (statutory construction; contemporaneous conditions and goals.)
- Haynes v. State, 174 Ill. 2d 204 (Ill. 1996) (Rule 401(a) waiver of counsel; substantial compliance enough.)
- People v. Hood, 213 Ill. 2d 244 (Ill. 2004) (rebuttal evidence admissibility; evidentiary scope.)
- Deck v. Missouri, 543 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2005) (harmlessness of shackling error; due process concern.)
- In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 (Ill. 2009) (one-act, one-crime considerations; apportionment of acts.)