People v. Williams
2017 IL App (1st) 150795
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Aug. 14, 2010, Darius Williams (passenger) and Jeremiah Witcher (driver) in a red car were involved in a high-speed encounter with two off‑duty police officers (Weathers and Rife) driving unmarked personal vehicles while wearing shirts identifying them as officers. A chase ensued after the red car nearly collided with one officer’s car.
- Officers testified they pulled alongside and signaled the red car to stop; they denied ever pointing or firing their duty weapons at the red car. They pursued and later located the red car abandoned behind a house.
- Physical evidence: .25‑caliber casings and a projectile were found in the red car consistent with shots fired from inside it; Rife’s car had door damage and a broken rear window. The officers’ duty weapons were .45 caliber; no .25‑caliber ammunition or other weapons were recovered from officers’ cars.
- Williams testified he believed the officers fired first, feared for his life, and fired a revolver in self‑defense; he asserted he did not know the other drivers were police officers.
- The trial court (bench trial) found credibility favored the officers, acquitted Williams of attempted murder but convicted him of aggravated discharge of a firearm and sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State disproved self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt | Officers’ testimony and physical evidence (caliber mismatch, casings in red car) undermined Williams’s claim; State negated elements of self‑defense | Williams claims he reasonably believed he faced imminent deadly force because an officer fired at him or because officers were armed/aggressively driving | Court held State disproved self‑defense; trier of fact credibility findings credited officers and physical evidence over Williams’s testimony |
| Whether trial court’s factual statement (credibility comment about officers missing and defendants hitting target) was reversible plain error or violated due process | Any misstatement was minor and did not concern the crux of Williams’s defense; physical evidence supported the court’s credibility choice | Williams argued the court misapprehended the firearm evidence and relied on inaccurate assumptions, denying due process | Court held the statement was a minor misstatement not affecting the verdict; no plain error or due process violation |
| Whether 10‑year sentence was excessive or plain error | Sentence within statutory range and court considered mitigating and aggravating factors; deterrence was a proper aggravator | Williams argued mitigating factors and that court double‑counted the shooting as an element and an aggravator, making sentence excessive | Court held sentence not excessive or plainly erroneous; no improper double‑counting—the court relied on deterrence as a valid aggravating consideration |
| Whether sentencing statute conflicted so Williams must receive day‑for‑day credit (serve 50%) instead of 85% requirement | The statutory language shows legislature intended harsher credit rules for offenses committed on/after June 23, 2005; no conflict—aggravated discharge requires at least 85% service | Williams argued two clauses created a conflict for crimes committed in 2010 and invoked rule of lenity to get more lenient day‑for‑day credit | Court held no conflict; statutory scheme bars day‑for‑day credit for aggravated discharge committed after June 23, 2005, so Williams must serve at least 85% |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lee, 213 Ill.2d 218 (elements of self‑defense and burden on State to disprove)
- People v. Evans, 209 Ill.2d 194 (trier of fact resolves credibility and inconsistencies)
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill.2d 598 (plain error standard)
- People v. Mitchell, 152 Ill.2d 274 (due process—trial court’s failure to recall crucial defense testimony)
- People v. Streit, 142 Ill.2d 13 (appellate review of sentencing—decline to reweigh factors)
- People v. Fern, 189 Ill.2d 48 (standard for reviewing sentence as excessive)
- People v. Cooper, 283 Ill. App.3d 86 (sentencing objectives: seriousness and rehabilitation)
- People v. Cox, 377 Ill. App.3d 690 (importance of offense seriousness in sentencing)
- People v. Quintana, 332 Ill. App.3d 96 (trial court’s consideration of mitigating/aggravating factors)
- People v. Flores, 404 Ill. App.3d 155 (presumption trial court considered mitigation)
- People v. Dominguez, 255 Ill. App.3d 995 (presumption court considered defendant’s mitigation evidence)