People v. Richardson
2011 IL App (4th) 100358
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Richardson charged Feb 2009 with three counts of first degree murder; convicted March 2010 and sentenced to 40 years in May 2010.
- Defendant elected to proceed pro se after court admonished him about self-representation and duties.
- Evidence showed victim found in apartment walkway; defendant’s clothing and a missing knife linked to the crime; victim’s blood on items.
- Defendant admitted stabbing in recorded police interviews and phone calls, later claiming self-defense and drug-related circumstances.
- Trial included recordings and wife’s testimony; defendant did not testify; jury convicted first degree murder; no posttrial motion.
- On appeal, Richardson argued the failure to instruct on second degree murder sua sponte or inform him of the right to request it constituted grave error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to give second degree instruction sua sponte | Richardson | Richardson | No error; decision rested with Richardson |
| Duty to inform right to request second degree instruction | Richardson | Richardson | No duty found; not required to inform sua sponte |
| Impact of self-representation on instructional issues | Richardson | Richardson | No plain error; he chose to represent himself and bears those duties |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Killen, 217 Ill. App. 3d 473 (Ill. App. 1991) (grave error when jury not instructed on essential elements)
- People v. Brocksmith, 162 Ill. 2d 224 (Ill. 1994) (defense may not usurp defendant's choice on lesser-included instruction)
- People v. DuPree, 397 Ill. App. 3d 719 (Ill. App. 2010) (distinguishes usurpation issue; focus on defendant's control over strategy)
- People v. Reddick, 123 Ill. 2d 184 (Ill. 1988) (grave errors may be considered despite forfeiture)
- People v. Allen, 401 Ill. App. 3d 840 (Ill. App. 2010) (explanation of responsibilities when proceeding pro se)