People v. Washington, 2012 IL 107993

People indicted Washington on armed robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated vehicular hijacking in 2004; charged under preamended statutes claiming custody of a dangerous weapon, to wit: a firearm.
Trial occurred in 2006; victim Farraj testified defendant pointed a gun at him and kept it at his head during the robbery sequence.
No firearm was recovered or introduced at trial, though Farraj testified to a gun present; defense argued the evidence did not prove a dangerous weapon.
Appellate Court reversed, holding the State failed to prove a dangerous weapon beyond a reasonable doubt based on Ross (BB gun-like evidence).
State appealed asserting Ross was distinguishable and the unimpeached victim testimony sufficed to prove a dangerous weapon; this Court disagreed with Ross and affirmed the conviction.
Dissent (Kilbride) argued the case should be governed by amended statutes and that the State did not prove a nonfirearm dangerous weapon, given the lack of evidence that any weapon other than a firearm was used.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved a dangerous weapon beyond a reasonable doubt.	People argues Farraj’s testimony showed a gun; sufficient to prove dangerous weapon.	Washington relies on Ross to argue insufficiency due to lack of firearm recovery.	Yes; sufficient evidence to prove a dangerous weapon beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether any variance between indictment and proof requires reversal or lesser charges.	People contends no fatal variance; charges aligned with predecessor statutes.	Washington contends variance existed due to firearm vs dangerous weapon framing.	No fatal variance; convictions affirmed.
Whether defendant is entitled to a new trial for pretrial in limine ruling on prior convictions.	People cites Averett to support non-reviewability when defendant did not testify.	Washington argues trial error due to in limine ruling.	Averett controls; issue not reviewable here.
Whether the appellate court should have reversed given the procedural posture and statutory framework post-2000 amendments.	People argues amended substantive provisions remained intact and applicable.	Washington argues substantive provisions framed the charged offenses; misuse of outdated statutes.	Court affirms conviction; appellate court reversal reversed.

People v. Ross, 229 Ill. 2d 255 (2008) (sufficiency of evidence for dangerous weapon depends on circumstances; not enough when no real weapon shown)
People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481 (2005) (overruled Walden/Moss regarding firearm sentencing enhancements; substantive statutes remain intact)
People v. Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d 63 (2007) (clarified that firearm enhancements were unconstitutional but substantive offenses remained intact)
People v. Walden, 199 Ill. 2d 392 (2002) (constitutionality of firearm enhancements challenged; affected both ex post facto issues)
People v. Moss, 206 Ill. 2d 503 (2003) (same subject as Walden; enhancements declared unconstitutional)
People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1 (2010) (pretrial motion in limine rulings not reviewable when defendant did not testify)