People v. Trice
87 N.E.3d 1087
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- In October 2013 police arranged a controlled buy at a Pilot truck-stop: paid informant Beverly Throgmorton arranged a $400 crack purchase; officers supplied marked bills and observed the transaction. The recovered substance tested positive for cocaine (1.3 grams).
- Defendant John Trice was arrested shortly after; police recovered a phone linking him to Throgmorton and marked money from his person.
- At arrest, defendant gave a recorded statement acknowledging he facilitated contact and pocketed $200; at trial he denied knowing a sale would occur and said he merely gave a ride to Jovon Wilder and did not handle drugs.
- A jury convicted Trice of delivery of a controlled substance at a truck stop and delivery of a controlled substance; the court merged counts and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Trice argued (1) the trial court should have instructed the jury on entrapment, (2) trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting an instruction cautioning about paid informants, and (3) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct in its examination and closing argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing entrapment instruction | State: no error; defendant never admitted committing the offense at trial so entrapment instruction not warranted | Trice: the evidence (including his pre-arrest statement) supplied slight evidence of entrapment, so instruction was required | Court: no error — defendant denied commission at trial (required precondition), so entrapment instruction not appropriate |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting an informant-caution instruction | State: no ineffective assistance; Illinois has no IPI instructing specially on paid informants and existing IPI credibility instructions suffice | Trice: counsel should have requested a special informant instruction because Throgmorton was a paid informant whose testimony needed caution | Court: no deficient performance — IPI No. 1.02 and other instructions covered credibility; non-IPI informant instruction would properly be refused |
| Whether prosecutor committed reversible misconduct in direct exam and closing | State: questioning and argument were proper—direct testimony about informant’s background was admissible for credibility; rebuttal comments responded to defense attack | Trice: prosecutor vouched for informant, disparaged defendant, and gave improper personal opinions in closing | Held: no plain error — arguments fell within permissible bounds (many invited by defense), and remarks were not so inflammatory as to deny fair trial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Eppinger, 984 N.E.2d 475 (Ill. 2013) (plain-error framework described)
- People v. Piatkowski, 870 N.E.2d 403 (Ill. 2007) (plain-error standards)
- People v. Gillespie, 557 N.E.2d 894 (Ill. 1990) (defendant must admit commission of offense to raise entrapment)
- People v. Walker, 641 N.E.2d 965 (Ill. App. Ct.) (case discussing entitlement to entrapment instruction; court here declined to follow)
- People v. McDonald, 77 N.E.3d 26 (Ill. 2016) (clarified "some evidence" standard for affirmative-defense instructions and standard of review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged ineffective-assistance test)
- People v. Evans, 808 N.E.2d 939 (Ill. 2004) (credibility of informant is for the jury)
- People v. Richardson, 528 N.E.2d 612 (Ill. 1988) (prosecutor may argue witness credibility; invited response doctrine)
- People v. Johnson, 803 N.E.2d 405 (Ill. 2003) (pervasive prosecutorial misconduct can require reversal)