People v. Taylor
65 N.E.3d 514
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- On December 20, 2010 Romaro Taylor shot Lashae Depratto after her car collided with the parked car of Taylor’s ex, which carried Taylor’s seven‑year‑old daughter; Depratto was wounded.
- Depratto and an eyewitness identified Taylor; he was arrested in September 2011 and charged with attempted first‑degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm.
- At trial Depratto testified she circled the block, sideswiped the parked car, then stopped; Taylor ran up, shouted that she tried to kill his child, and fired through her closed car window.
- Taylor requested a jury instruction for defense of others; the trial court denied it, ruling any danger had subsided after the car stopped.
- The jury convicted Taylor of attempted first‑degree murder and aggravated battery; the court merged convictions and sentenced him to 36 years as a Class X offender.
- On appeal Taylor challenged (1) the refusal to instruct on defense of others, (2) trial counsel’s failure to request an instruction about unreasonable belief/imperfect defense negating attempted first‑degree murder, (3) the court’s refusal to sentence him as a Class 1 offender under 720 ILCS 5/8‑4(c)(1)(E), and (4) several fines/fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing defense‑of‑others instruction | There was slight evidence of danger to child and Taylor’s belief was reasonable; instruction required | Danger had subsided after car stopped; no imminent danger so instruction unnecessary | No abuse of discretion; court permissibly found danger had ended and instruction not warranted |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting instruction that unreasonable belief prevents attempted 1st‑degree murder | N/A (State) | Counsel should have requested non‑IPI instruction that imperfect defense negates specific intent for attempted 1st‑degree murder | Denied — court found no underlying evidence of defense of others, so failure to request the hypothetical instruction was not prejudicial |
| Correct classification for attempted murder sentencing under 8‑4(c)(1)(E) (Class 1 reduction) | Statute allows reduction where defendant acted under sudden intense passion from serious provocation; trial court misread statute | Trial court interpreted statute to require negligent/accidental killing, making reduction impossible | Reversed and remanded: court misinterpreted statute; remand for resentencing to determine sudden/intense passion and provocation facts |
| Validity/applicability of post‑2010 automation fees and other fees | Some fees enacted after offense violate ex post facto; some fees inapplicable | Automation fees are compensatory (not punitive); fees generally permissible; Public Defender automation fee inapplicable because defendant had private counsel | Ex post facto challenge rejected; vacated $2 Public Defender Records Automation Fee (not applicable); affirmed remaining fees (including $25 Court Services Fee) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lockett, 82 Ill. 2d 546 (Ill. 1980) (trial court must assess whether any evidence supports defendant's subjective belief in necessity of force)
- People v. Everette, 141 Ill. 2d 147 (Ill. 1990) (discussed standard for reviewing entitlement to self‑defense instructions)
- People v. Washington, 2012 IL 110283 (Ill. 2012) (legal question about required instructions reviewed de novo)
- People v. Reagan, 99 Ill. 2d 238 (Ill. 1983) (Illinois does not recognize attempted voluntary manslaughter based on unreasonable self‑defense belief)
- People v. Hill, 276 Ill. App. 3d 683 (Ill. App. 1995) (attempted murder requires specific intent to kill)
- People v. Valfer, 2016 IL 119220 (Ill. 2016) (canon against statutory constructions that render portions meaningless)