People v. Zambrano
2016 IL App (3d) 140178
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Jesus Zambrano was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder for the May 22, 2009 shooting of Robert Gooch and sentenced to 45 years’ imprisonment.
- Security-camera videos showed a Cutlass arriving and occupants exiting; Elissa Hinton identified Pedro Sanchez (white T‑shirt) as the person who went to the door and heard a gunshot.
- Christian Lopez testified for the State after the trial court found he faced a real risk of self‑incrimination and the State granted him use immunity; Lopez testified he accompanied Zambrano and Sanchez to the building, stayed on the stair landing, heard a gunshot, and fled.
- Defense impeached Lopez with prior inconsistent statements and questioned his bias based on unrelated charges and dispositions, but did not question Lopez about the grant of use immunity and did not tender an accomplice‑witness jury instruction.
- Zambrano appealed arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for (1) failure to impeach Lopez with the fact of his use immunity and (2) failure to submit the accomplice‑witness instruction.
- The appellate court held the record was inadequate to decide the immunity‑impeachment claim on direct appeal (should be raised in postconviction proceedings) but found counsel ineffective for failing to tender the accomplice‑witness instruction, reversed, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach Lopez with the grant of use immunity | State argued immunity was not material because Lopez had no Fifth Amendment protection and there was no deal | Zambrano argued counsel unreasonably failed to impeach Lopez with the immunity grant, which would have shown motive/bias | Record inadequate on direct appeal to evaluate reasonableness or prejudice; remanded for postconviction review |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to tender an accomplice‑witness jury instruction | State argued evidence did not require accomplice instruction | Zambrano argued Lopez’s role (entering building with others, refusing gun, returning with them, and being granted immunity) made him an accomplice and the instruction was required | Court held counsel’s failure to tender the instruction was deficient and prejudicial; conviction reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (ineffective assistance claims may be raised in postconviction proceedings when record is inadequate on direct appeal)
- People v. Ousley, 235 Ill. 2d 299 (2009) (use immunity may be granted where witness likely to invoke Fifth Amendment)
- People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52 (2001) (accomplice instruction required when probable cause exists that witness was a participant)
- People v. Wilson, 66 Ill. 2d 346 (1977) (uncorroborated accomplice testimony can support conviction but should be viewed with caution)