People v. Stevenson
2025 IL App (2d) 240068-U
Ill. App. Ct.2025Background
- Defendant, Travaris Stevenson, was convicted of first and second degree murder and armed violence after fatally shooting two men during a drug deal that turned into an alleged armed robbery.
- Stevenson claimed he shot the victims after they attempted to rob him at gunpoint; he testified that he was afraid for his life even after surrendering drugs and money.
- At trial, Stevenson wanted the jury instructed on his right to use deadly force to prevent a robbery (forcible felony), but the trial court only instructed the jury on deadly force justified by imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.
- On direct appeal, the court affirmed, finding that the jury instruction on robbery was not warranted by the evidence presented at trial.
- Stevenson later filed a pro se postconviction petition, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for not presenting testimony to support the robbery instruction; the trial court summarily dismissed his petition.
- On appeal from this dismissal, Stevenson argued he stated the gist of a constitutional claim, asserting that the omitted instruction caused prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective Assistance—Failure to Support Robbery Instruction | Counsel’s failure did not prejudice defendant since outcome would not have changed. | Counsel was ineffective for not eliciting testimony to justify deadly force to prevent a robbery. | No arguable prejudice; jury already rejected self-defense, so additional instruction would not have affected outcome. |
| Appropriateness of Jury Instructions Given | Omitted instruction was unnecessary, and jury considered self-defense theory. | The jury should have been instructed that deadly force could be used to prevent a robbery. | Omission was, at most, harmless error because the jury’s verdict showed it disbelieved defendant’s rationale for shooting. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims)
- People v. Houston, 226 Ill. 2d 135 (Ill. 2007) (Illinois applies Strickland’s two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52 (Ill. 2008) (jury instructions must clarify legal principles relevant to the case)
- People v. McDonald, 2016 IL 118882 (Ill. 2016) (defendant entitled to instruction on defense theories supported by evidence)
- People v. Davis, 213 Ill. 2d 459 (Ill. 2004) (affirmative defenses require some supporting evidence for jury instruction)