People v. Thompson
168 N.E.3d 934
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- On Jan. 30, 2014, two men fired ~10–15 shots at Shawn Harrington’s car while he was driving his 15‑year‑old daughter (Naja) to school; Harrington was paralyzed, Naja uninjured.
- Both defendants, Cedryck Davis and Deandre Thompson, were identified at trial (and in lineups) by victims: Harrington identified Davis; Naja identified Thompson (and later both identified Davis and Thompson in court).
- A witness (Charles Molette) gave a pretrial statement identifying both defendants as shooters in an earlier Jan. 28, 2014 shooting of Darren Dear two blocks away; at trial Molette disavowed his statement.
- Ballistics testing showed one bullet from the Dear shooting matched bullets from the Harrington shooting, suggesting the same firearm was used in both incidents.
- Jury convicted both defendants of attempted first‑degree murder and firearm use; each was sentenced to 59 years’ imprisonment. Defendants appealed on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that defendants were the shooters | Victims’ lineup and in‑court IDs, Molette’s pretrial statement, and ballistics linking Dear and Harrington shootings support identification | IDs were unreliable (brief view, hoods, suggestive lineup), Molette recanted, ballistics did not tie each defendant to Dear shooting | Convictions affirmed — viewed in State’s favor, IDs plus corroboration were sufficient for a rational juror to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency of specific intent to kill Naja | Firing many shots at occupied vehicle from close range, use of deadly weapons, and resulting grave injury to father permit inference of intent to kill occupants including Naja | At most aggravated discharge of a firearm; no proof defendants knew Naja was in the car or had motive; transferred intent should not apply to uninjured unintended victim | Held: intent to kill Naja could be inferred from the circumstances (barrage of gunfire into occupied vehicle); jury reasonably found specific intent |
| Admissibility of other‑crimes evidence (Dear shooting) | Evidence was admitted for identity; temporally/spatially proximate and corroborated by ballistics so probative | Prejudicial; Molette unreliable; risk of unfairly influencing jury by showing involvement in another shooting | Held: trial court acted within discretion — probative value for identity (time/place/method + ballistics) outweighed prejudice; admission proper |
| Admission of Molette’s pretrial written statement (proved signed) | Statement was written, witnessed, and pages signed; admissible under prior‑inconsistent‑statement statute | Molette denied signing/making statement; Thompson argued the State failed to prove signature and asked for an acknowledgment hearing | Held: no abuse of discretion — sufficient proof to admit statement; jury could weigh credibility; no mandatory pretrial hearing required here |
| Thompson’s sentence (excessive/disparate relative to codefendant) | Sentence within statutory range and court considered aggravating/mitigating factors; defendants were similarly situated | Thompson has lesser criminal history and should receive lesser sentence | Held: 59‑year sentence affirmed; presumption of propriety applies to within‑range sentence and record showed defendants were substantially similar so no improper disparity |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency‑of‑the‑evidence review)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (assessment factors for identification reliability)
- People v. Slim, 127 Ill. 2d 302 (single witness ID can support conviction if viewing circumstances permit)
- People v. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159 (standards on admissibility of other‑crimes evidence and Rule 404(b))
- People v. Fern, 189 Ill. 2d 48 (sentencing deference and disparity principles)