People v. Washington, 969 N.E.2d 349

The State indicted Washington in 2004 for armed robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated vehicular hijacking, alleging he was armed with a dangerous weapon, to wit a firearm.
The offenses were charged under preamended statutes, though the later amendments created firearm/non-firearm distinctions and enhanced sentencing for firearms.
Trial occurred in 2006; Farraj testified that Washington pointed a gun at him and held it to his head throughout the car- and truck-sequence, though no gun was recovered.
Police pursued the truck; Farraj was eventually released; a safe from the truck was missing; Washington was captured; accomplice fled.
Appellate court reversed, concluding the State failed to prove Washington was armed with a dangerous weapon beyond a reasonable doubt, relying on Ross.
The State appealed; Washington cross-appealed asserting variance between indictment and proof and seeking a new trial due to in limine rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence Washington used a dangerous weapon?	State contends Farraj's unequivocal testimony established a dangerous weapon beyond reasonable doubt.	Washington argues no weapon was recovered and no weapon type proven, so insufficient to prove dangerous weapon.	Yes; sufficient evidence to infer a dangerous weapon was used.
Was there a fatal variance between indictment and proof regarding weapon type?	State maintains indictment adequately tracked proof under amended statutes and no fatal variance.	Washington contends variance prejudiced defense by framing the weapon as firearm.	No fatal variance; indictment adequately aligned with proof under the predecessor statutes.
Should there be a new trial for improper pretrial in limine rulings on prior convictions?	State asserts Averett controls but does not require reversal when defendant chose not to testify.	Washington argues in limine rulings merit a new trial due to evidentiary issues.	No new trial required; Averett governs review when defendant did not testify.

People v. Ross, 229 Ill.2d 255 (2008) (limits on dangerous-weapon inference when no weapon recovered)
People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill.2d 481 (2005) (overruled Walden and Moss on firearm enhancements; retroactive effect)
People v. Walden, 199 Ill.2d 392 (2002) (unconstitutional firearm enhancements; affects sentencing provisions)
People v. Moss, 206 Ill.2d 503 (2003) (unconstitutional firearm enhancements; companion to Walden)
People v. Averett, 237 Ill.2d 1 (2010) (no review of pretrial in limine rulings when defendant did not testify)
People v. Hauschild, 226 Ill.2d 63 (2007) (reaffirms substantive statute elements after Walden/Moss)
People v. Riley, 219 Ill.App.3d 482 (1991) (support for reasonable-doubt standard in dangerous-weapon inference)
People v. Thomas, 189 Ill.App.3d 365 (1989) (supports inference of weapon type from circumstances)