People v. Ross
407 Ill. App. 3d 931
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Ross was convicted after a bench trial of armed habitual criminal and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon; 80-month sentence on AHCr only.
- A handgun was found in the backseat behind the driver’s seat of Gomez’s vehicle, which she owned; Ross did not own the car.
- Defense claimed Ross was only a permissive user of the vehicle; Gomez testified the car belonged to her and at 9:50 a.m. the backseat contained only an infant seat.
- Patterson testified that Jamal, Ross’s son, placed the gun in the backseat; another defense witness corroborated some aspects of Ross’s account; Jones testified no other people were present.
- The State presented evidence of Ross’s control of the vehicle and flight from the scene; the defense challenged whether Ross had knowledge of the gun.
- The court applied sufficiency review, focusing on whether a rational trier of fact could find knowledge and possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for AHCr (knowledge/possession) | State argues Ross had knowledge via vehicle control and flight; inference supports possession. | Bailey/Hampton-like arguments show proximity alone cannot prove knowledge; no view of gun in Ross’s possession. | Sufficient evidence; reasonable juror could find knowledge and control. |
| Constitutionality of the AHCr statute under the Second Amendment | AHCr is a permissible regulatory measure consistent with Heller/McDonald; serves important government interest. | AHCr is unconstitutional as applied to felons’ rights to bear arms beyond the home. | Statute constitutional under intermediate scrutiny; valid regulation. |
| Ex post facto challenge to AHCr | Statute punishes new conduct (possession after multiple predicates) regardless of predicate dates. | Using pre-enactment convictions as elements violates ex post facto. | Not ex post facto; separate offense punished by possessing firearm after prior convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (second amendment limits; home possession case)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment; police power reaffirmed)
- People v. Dawson, 403 Ill.App.3d 499 (2010) (limits of Heller and Dawsons' application to AUUW)
- People v. Bailey, 396 Ill.App.3d 459 (2009) (ex post facto analysis for AHCr)
- People v. Leonard, 391 Ill.App.3d 926 (2009) (AHCr ex post facto analysis; prior convictions as elements)
- People v. Aguilar, 408 Ill.App.3d 136 (2011) (intermediate scrutiny and AUUW reasoning)
- Ingram, 389 Ill.App.3d 897 (2009) (plain view, duration in auto, flight inference)
- Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (intermediate scrutiny for firearm regulation)
- Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (intermediate scrutiny for DV firearm ban)
- Williams, 616 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2010) (upholding felon firearm prohibition under intermediate scrutiny)
- Yancey, 621 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2010) (narcotics addicts barred from firearm possession; intermediate scrutiny)
- Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) (intermediate scrutiny upholding § 922(g)(9))
- Reese, 627 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2010) (intermediate scrutiny for domestic violence firearm ban)