People v. Smith
110 N.E.3d 274
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- On Nov. 16, 2009, William Burtner (age 65) walked from a VFW to a bank carrying deposit bags and a cigar box; a man later identified as Stevie Smith was observed running away into a black car moments after Burtner was seen behind a wall.
- Burtner was found on the ground clutching his left side; eyewitness and paramedic accounts indicated he was punched from behind and fell; three fresh left-side rib fractures consistent with a punch were found at autopsy.
- Money and the VFW deposit bags were recovered from the black car; DNA from the passenger side matched Smith; codefendant Brown drove the car and had cash on his person.
- Trial court acquitted Smith of first-degree murder but convicted him of robbery (elevated because victim was over 60) and aggravated battery of a senior citizen; aggravated battery convictions were merged and Smith received consecutive terms (12 years robbery, plus 6 years for aggravated battery of a senior).
- On appeal the issue focused on the one-act, one-crime rule: whether the single punch could support both robbery and aggravated-battery convictions, or whether the taking of property was a separate physical act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions for robbery and aggravated battery of a senior violate one-act, one-crime | The State: the punch was one act but the taking of the deposit bags was a separate act supporting robbery | Smith: only one physical act (the punch) was proven; the single punch cannot be the basis for both offenses | Vacated aggravated-battery conviction; robbery conviction affirmed — only one physical act (the punch) was supported by the evidence, so lesser offense vacated |
| Forfeiture/plain-error review of one-act, one-crime claim | The State: defendant forfeited issue by not objecting, but it is reviewable for plain error affecting integrity of judicial process | Smith: accepts forfeiture but argues plain error applies because one-act, one-crime error affects judicial integrity | Court applied second-prong plain-error review and addressed the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. King, 66 Ill.2d 551 (defines an "act" for one-act, one-crime analysis)
- People v. Rodriguez, 169 Ill.2d 183 (explains need to identify single vs. multiple physical acts; common act may support multiple offenses only if there is another separate act)
- People v. Johnson, 237 Ill.2d 81 (one-act, one-crime standard; less serious offense must be vacated)
- People v. Myers, 85 Ill.2d 281 (discusses interrelationship of multiple acts and multiple convictions)
- People v. Pearson, 331 Ill. App.3d 312 (distinguished: there, separate acts — taking and then pushing — supported robbery and aggravated battery)
- People v. Enoch, 122 Ill.2d 176 (procedural forfeiture principles)
- In re Samantha V., 234 Ill.2d 359 (plain-error doctrine — one-act, one-crime issues affect judicial integrity)