People v. Smith, 2023 IL App (2d) 220340-U

Background

On July 4, 2021 a 911 caller (Steele) reported seeing a man in a turquoise shirt with a gun who chased someone and that he heard a possible gunshot; caller gave vehicle description and license plate.
Officers located the described SUV, conducted a high‑risk stop, and found defendant Giovanni M. Smith driving the vehicle; a loaded firearm was hidden under the center‑console cupholders where he had been seated.
No fingerprints or DNA were recovered from the weapon; defendant was not the registered owner of the car. Defendant made statements (on bodycam and a jail call) referring to a “pipe.”
Defendant stipulated to two prior qualifying felony convictions; he was charged with armed habitual criminal and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, tried by jury, convicted, and sentenced in absentia to 21 years.
Court admitted part of the 911 call as an excited utterance and allowed officers to testify about dispatch information for the limited purpose of explaining their actions; the court refused defendant’s proposed limiting jury instruction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of 911 call / scope (redaction)	911 call admissible as excited utterance and probative to explain officers’ response and to corroborate identification evidence	Call should be redacted/excluded because references to chasing and shots were prejudicial, irrelevant to charged offenses	Admission of unredacted portion not reversible; defendant forfeited broader redaction claim; evidence not closely balanced so no plain‑error relief; ineffective‑assistance claim fails for lack of prejudice
Officers testifying to dispatch contents	Testimony admissible to explain investigatory steps and why officers performed a high‑risk stop; caller was available to testify	Testimony was hearsay and unnecessary; risk of substantive use of other‑acts allegations (citing Jura)	Admission was not an abuse of discretion; distinguishable from Jura because caller testified and officers did not assert defendant matched description; no plain‑error and no ineffective‑assistance relief
Refusal to give defendant’s limiting instruction	Limiting instruction unnecessary and would unduly highlight a single piece of evidence already in the record; 911 call and Steele’s testimony were before jury without limitation	Court must instruct jury when investigatory hearsay is admitted for limited purpose so jurors won’t use it substantively	Refusal not an abuse of discretion given evidence duplication and context; error (if any) harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
As‑applied Second Amendment challenge to armed habitual criminal statute under Bruen	State: statute fits Heller/McDonald exception for felons; Bruen’s test doesn’t protect felons and historical tradition supports disarming felons	Defendant: statute unconstitutional as applied because predicates were nonviolent felonies and Bruen’s historical‑tradition test is not met	Rejected: Bruen’s focus is on "law‑abiding" citizens; felons fall outside that core and historical tradition supports prohibiting felons’ possession of firearms; statute constitutional as applied

Key Cases Cited

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment decision recognizing longstanding prohibitions on felons)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (incorporation of Second Amendment to states; reiterated felon prohibition)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (test requiring historical tradition analysis when text covers conduct)
People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (framework for plain‑error review)
People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (plain‑error standards and burden on defendant)
People v. Jura, 352 Ill. App. 3d 1080 (discussing limits on police testimony repeating hearsay investigative calls)
People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445 (definition/assessment of closely balanced evidence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective‑assistance standard requiring deficient performance and prejudice)