2020 IL App (3d) 160454
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- In October 2015 Andrew Smith and his brother Jeremiah were stopped during a cross‑country trip; Andrew fled and led police on a high‑speed chase.
- A short time later two unloaded shotguns in cloth bags were found along the chase route; the brothers were arrested after being seen leaving an abandoned Nissan that contained an HP printer and numerous counterfeit bills.
- Andrew was indicted for forgery, unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, aggravated fleeing/eluding, and aggravated possession of stolen firearms; Jeremiah later pleaded guilty to some counts.
- Andrew waived appointed counsel and proceeded pro se; the trial court did not give the full admonitions required by Ill. S. Ct. R. 401(a) before accepting the waiver.
- During voir dire the court asked venire members they would "accept" Zehr principles but did not ask two jurors whether they understood them; the courtroom was partially closed during voir dire to accommodate the venire.
- A jury convicted Andrew of forgery, unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, and aggravated fleeing/eluding; the appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial based on Rule 401(a) noncompliance and an improper courtroom closure (also addressing Rule 431(b) error and sufficiency issues).
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Smith’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for unlawful possession by a felon | Constructive possession can be inferred from Smith’s status as driver, long road trip with camping gear, visibility/size of shotguns, proximity of bags, and joint control | Brother admitted ownership; no proof Andrew saw, handled, or controlled the guns; reasonable doubt exists | Majority: Evidence sufficient to support constructive possession; dissent would reverse on this count |
| Failure to ask venire whether they understood Zehr principles (Ill. S. Ct. R. 431(b)) | Substantial compliance; colloquial admonitions adequate | Court never asked two jurors if they understood the principles; error | Error occurred, but under plain‑error first prong defendant failed to show evidence was closely balanced; no reversal on this ground alone |
| Failure to admonish under Ill. S. Ct. R. 401(a) before waiver of counsel | Substantial compliance from earlier hearings and defendant’s legal sophistication | No proper admonition at the moment of waiver; Rule 401(a) requires specific, on‑the‑record admonitions | Court failed to comply with Rule 401(a); lack of substantial compliance requires reversal and remand for a new trial |
| Closure of courtroom during voir dire / public‑trial right | Closure trivial and for venire space; no record of prejudice | Full closure occurred without required factual findings; violated public‑trial right | Complete closure without findings is reversible plain error; supports reversal and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d 472 (discussing juror admonitions on presumption of innocence and burden of proof)
- People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445 (clarifying Rule 431(b) requirements for questioning jurors)
- People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094 (failure to ask jurors if they understood Zehr principles constitutes error)
- People v. Campbell, 224 Ill. 2d 80 (Rule 401(a) compliance required for valid waiver of counsel)
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (plain‑error review framework)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (defendant’s right to waive counsel and proceed pro se)
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (courtroom closure requires factual findings to justify deprivation of public‑trial right)