People v. Salas
356 Ill. Dec. 442
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Salas, age 16, charged with first-degree murder; automatically transferred to adult court under 705 ILCS 405/5-130.
- Trial featured multiple eyewitness identifications and conflicting accounts; Salas claimed he did not shoot Sergio Ojeda.
- Defense sought and trial court gave a self-defense instruction; defense also sought a second-degree murder instruction.
- Forensic and police evidence included gun, bullets, gunshot residue analysis; defense disputed intent and shooting details.
- Salas was convicted of first-degree murder with a firearm-enhancement; sentenced to 50 years (25 on murder plus 25 consecutive for discharging firearm).
- Defendant appealed, arguing (i) automatic transfer violated due process or eighth amendment, (ii) error in jury instructions, (iii) ineffective assistance, (iv) absence from instruction conference, and (v) improper closing remarks; court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether automatic transfer violates due process or eighth amendment. | Salas contends transfer statute is unconstitutional. | Salas argues the statute lacks youth consideration and imposes punishment. | statute not punitive; no eighth-amendment violation; due process defense rejected. |
| Whether failure to give second-degree murder instruction was reversible. | People argue self-defense instruction does not mandate second-degree instruction. | Salas contends evidence supported involuntary/second-degree instruction. | No error; insufficient evidence to support self-defense as basis for second-degree instruction. |
| Whether defense ineffective assistance claims succeed. | Salas claims counsel failed on involuntary manslaughter and Lynch evidence. | Salas asserts prejudicial errors in trial representation. | Claims lack prejudice or evidentiary foundation; no reversible error. |
| Whether Salas' absence from the jury instruction conference violated presence rights. | State asserts no violation given lack of reversible error. | Salas asserts right to be present at proceedings. | Absence did not deprive a substantive right; no violation. |
| Whether closing remarks by the State violated due process. | State comments mischaracterized evidence. | Salas argues prosecutorial bias affected verdict. | Remarks not reversible; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (juvenile death penalty prohibited under Eighth Amendment)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. _ (U.S. 2010) (juvenile life without parole for nonhomicide offenses prohibited under Eighth Amendment)
- J.S., 103 Ill.2d 395 (Ill. 1984) (automatic transfer statute survives substantive due process)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1966) (procedural due process concerns in waivers from juvenile to adult court)
- Miller v. People, 202 Ill.2d 328 (Ill. 2002) (limitations of automatic transfer with multiple statutes producing harsh outcomes)
- People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill.2d 481 (Ill. 2005) (abandoned cross-comparison method for proportional penalties; statute analysis)
- People v. J.S., 103 Ill.2d 395 (Ill. 1984) (reaffirmed Kent-based procedural due process framework for transfer)