People v. Thompson
2017 IL App (5th) 120079-B
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Jeremy R. Thompson was tried by jury for (1) attempt to procure anhydrous ammonia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine and (2) tampering with anhydrous ammonia equipment based on surveillance video showing a person between ammonia tanks with a bucket, soda bottle, and hose.
- Surveillance still/video circulated to law enforcement; several officers and a civilian witness identified the photo/video as Thompson; Thompson made post-Miranda admissions to manufacturing meth and stealing anhydrous ammonia, then gave an inconsistent recantation and presented an alibi at trial.
- Jury viewed the surveillance tape during trial and twice in deliberations, and convicted on both counts; Thompson was sentenced as a Class X offender.
- On initial appeal the appellate court reversed based on improper lay-opinion identification testimony and accepted the State’s concession that both convictions arose from the same physical act; the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the reversal, finding any lay-opinion error harmless and remanded to the appellate court to consider other issues.
- On remand the appellate court considered whether the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that an attempt requires a "substantial step" was plain error and also addressed Thompson’s ineffective-assistance claim; the court vacated the tampering conviction under the one-act/one-crime rule but affirmed the attempt conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to give "substantial step" attempt instruction was plain error | No plain error; overwhelming evidence of a substantial step (surveillance, admissions) | Omission removed essential element and deprived fair trial | Not plain error; omission did not prejudice Thompson; conviction affirmed |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting the attempt instruction | Counsel’s omission did not cause prejudice; strategic decision | Counsel was deficient for failing to request the instruction, causing prejudice | Ineffective-assistance claim fails (no prejudice; strategy plausible) |
| Whether convictions for attempt and tampering violate one-act/one-crime rule | State conceded both arose from same physical act; only one conviction appropriate | Same | Tampering conviction vacated; attempt conviction stands |
| Admissibility of lay opinion identification testimony (procedural history) | Testimony admissible or harmless error | Testimony improperly invaded jury function | Supreme Court held any error was harmless; appellate court did not re-decide admissibility on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166 (2010) (plain-error doctrine for jury instructions; Rule 451(c) scope)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (2005) (defendant bears burden to show prejudice for plain-error review)
- People v. Bell, 968 N.E.2d 1262 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012) (analysis of "substantial step" instruction omission in attempted anhydrous-ammonia case)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551 (1977) (one-act, one-crime rule governing multiple convictions arising from same physical act)