People v. Thompson
2017 IL App (5th) 120079-B
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jeremy R. Thompson was tried by jury in Hamilton County and convicted of: (1) attempt to procure anhydrous ammonia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, and (2) tampering with anhydrous ammonia equipment. He was sentenced to 18 years (Class X) plus mandatory release.
- Surveillance camera footage at a farm-supply site showed a person carrying a five‑gallon bucket, a soda bottle with a hose, and moving between anhydrous ammonia tanks whose caps had been removed; the video was played to the jury.
- Multiple law‑enforcement witnesses and a civilian (who had drug involvement) identified the person in the video as Thompson; Thompson made statements to police admitting prior meth manufacture and thefts of anhydrous ammonia and describing being "gassed out" on the day in question, then later recanted and asserted an alibi.
- On first appeal this court reversed based on improper lay‑opinion identification testimony and vacated one conviction under one‑act/one‑crime; the Illinois Supreme Court reversed as to lay‑opinion error (harmless) and remanded for consideration of remaining issues.
- On remand the sole issues addressed were (1) whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the "substantial step" element of attempt (forfeited at trial), and (2) whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting that instruction; the State conceded the two convictions arose from the same physical act and agreed one must be vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to instruct on "substantial step" (attempt element) | No plain error: evidence overwhelmingly showed a substantial step; failure to request instruction was forfeited and not prejudicial. | Omission removed essential element from jury, depriving fair trial; instruction was required. | No plain error. Omission did not create a reasonable probability of a different result given video and defendant's admissions. Instructional error not corrected. |
| Ineffective assistance for not requesting "substantial step" instruction | Counsel’s omission did not prejudice defendant; substantial‑step proof was overwhelming and tactic was reasonable. | Counsel performance was deficient and prejudiced defense by failing to secure essential instruction. | Ineffective‑assistance claim failed: no prejudice shown under Strickland; tactical decision within wide range of reasonable strategy. |
| One‑act, one‑crime (double conviction) | State conceded both convictions arose from the same physical act; only one conviction should stand. | — | Conviction for tampering (count II) vacated; conviction for attempt (count I) affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Thompson, 49 N.E.3d 393 (Ill. 2016) (Ill. Supreme Court reversing appellate reversal of lay‑opinion ID error as harmless and remanding)
- People v. Bell, 968 N.E.2d 1262 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012) (assessing whether omission of "substantial step" instruction in anhydrous‑ammonia attempt case amounted to plain error)
- People v. Sargent, 940 N.E.2d 1045 (Ill. 2010) (plain‑error doctrine for jury‑instruction defects and Rule 451(c) discussion)
- People v. Herron, 830 N.E.2d 467 (Ill. 2005) (burden on defendant to show closely balanced evidence or serious error under plain‑error analysis)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. King, 363 N.E.2d 838 (Ill. 1977) (one‑act, one‑crime rule; vacating duplicative convictions)