People v. Tademy
30 N.E.3d 1134
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant Roderick Tademy was tried by jury on indictment charging attempted first‑degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, and aggravated battery of a child for shooting his 12‑year‑old son in the head.
- Wife Antoinette testified defendant acted delusional while drinking, pointed a gun, struck and shot the child, then appeared remorseful and sought a towel; she also described longstanding abnormal behavior when he drank.
- Defendant raised an insanity defense and presented Dr. Bruce Frumkin (diagnosed defendant with chronic paranoid schizophrenia; opined defendant was insane at the time of the shooting).
- State rebutted with Dr. Randi Zoot (diagnosed depression with psychotic features and alcohol abuse; opined defendant was sane and appreciated the criminality of his act); both experts relied in part on jail medical records.
- Jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts (verdict forms included guilty, not guilty, guilty but mentally ill, and not guilty by reason of insanity). Court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/manifest weight of insanity finding | Jury rationally accepted State expert; evidence supported sanity | Defendant argued schizophrenia rendered him unable to appreciate criminality; verdict against manifest weight | Affirmed: jury could credit State expert and lay testimony; sanity finding not manifestly against weight |
| Confrontation Clause re: jail psychiatrist records | Experts properly relied on records under Evid. R. 703; references not offered for truth | Defendant argued Sixth Amendment violated because jail psychiatrist did not testify; raised plain error/ineffective counsel | No plain error: experts used records as bases for opinions; stray closing remark not reversible; ineffective‑assistance claim fails |
| Rule 431(b) jury admonition (right not to testify) | State conceded trial court failed to ask jurors about fourth Rule 431(b) principle | Defendant argued plain error because evidence closely balanced | No reversible error: evidence not closely balanced, so omission not reversible |
| Multiple convictions for same physical act (one‑act, one‑crime) | State agreed lesser convictions should be vacated if based on same act | Defendant sought vacatur of aggravated battery convictions as duplicative of attempted murder | Vacated aggravated battery with a firearm and aggravated battery of a child convictions; attempted murder conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Urdiales v. People, 225 Ill. 2d 354 (factfinder’s sanity determinations reviewed for manifest weight)
- Piatkowski v. People, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (plain‑error framework and definition of “plain”)
- Herron v. People, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (plain‑error reversible‑error prongs; prejudice standards)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause—testimonial statements require prior opportunity for cross‑examination)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance two‑prong standard)
- Kando v. People, 397 Ill. App. 3d 165 (allocation of burdens for insanity defense and deference to factfinder’s choice between experts)
- McCullum v. People, 386 Ill. App. 3d 495 (factfinder assesses credibility of expert testimony)
- Lono v. People, 11 Ill. App. 3d 443 (commission of an incomprehensible crime alone does not establish insanity)