People v. Benford

Decision Date16 May 2022
Docket Number2-20-0349
Citation2022 IL App (2d) 200349 U
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAVANTAVIOUS Z. BENFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Winnebago County. No. 16-CF-852 Honorable Debra D. Schafer, Judge, Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE BRIDGES delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hutchinson and Hudson concurred in the judgment.

ORDER
BRIDGES PRESIDING JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for recusal of the Winnebago County State's Attorney's Office. Also, an error in a jury instruction did not constitute plain error. We therefore affirm.

¶ 2 Defendant, Javantavious Z. Benford, appeals from his conviction of first-degree murder, arguing that (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion seeking to recuse the Winnebago County State's Attorney's Office based on his familial relationship with the State's Attorney; and (2) an error in a jury instruction constituted plain error and requires a new trial. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On April 21, 2016, defendant was charged in a 42-count indictment with first-degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1 (a)(1) (2), (3) (West 2016)), armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2) (West 2016)), attempted armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 18-2(a)(2) (West 2016)), possession of a firearm without a firearm owner's identification card (430 ILCS 65/2(a) (1) (West 2016)), unlawful possession of firearms (720 ILCS 5/24-3.1(a)(1), (2) (West 2016)), and mob action (720 ILCS 5/25-1(a) (1) (West 2016)). The charges alleged that on March 29, 2016, defendant shot and killed Akeem Smith, and that defendant and his codefendants, Martaivis Harmon and Retavian Jefferson, committed related crimes.

¶ 5 A. Motion for Recusal

¶ 6 On March 15, 2019, defendant filed a motion requesting the recusal of the Winnebago County State's Attorney's Office due to defendant's alleged familial relationship with State's Attorney Marilyn Hite-Ross.

¶ 7 At a hearing on March 18, 2019, the assistant State's Attorney stated that "defendant early on sent a letter to Ms. Hite-Ross claiming a familial tie ***." The State subsequently filed a motion to strike defendant's motion for recusal, arguing that it named family members of the State's Attorney and put their safety in danger. The trial court granted the motion, giving leave to defendant to file an amended motion without naming Hite-Ross's family members.

¶ 8 On April 12, 2019, defendant filed a new motion requesting the recusal of the Winnebago County State's Attorney's Office. He alleged as follows. Hite-Ross had married the uncle of defendant's mother, Keyondia Watkins, and Watkins had known Hite-Ross since Watkins was nine years old. Watkins had a "long and warm familial relationship" with Hite-Ross, and defendant had known Hite-Ross his entire life. The Ross family had regularly provided Watkins financial aid, including helping her purchase her house in Atlanta, Georgia, and the aid had allowed Watkins to allocate some money to send to defendant during his incarceration. The codefendants had either accepted or were offered a plea to second-degree murder in the case, but no such offer was extended to defendant. Defendant argued that considering the differences in the plea offers to defendant and his codefendants, and the familial and financial ties between defendant's mother and the family of the State's Attorney, there was the appearance of a conflict of interest.

¶ 9 The State filed a reply stating that it was understandable that defendant was not given the same offer as his codefendants because the State's theory of the case was that defendant fatally shot the victim. The State denied that there was a long and warm familial relationship between Watkins and Hite-Ross and stated that there was no ongoing financial relationship between them.

¶ 10 In his response, defendant alleged that he had initially received an offer that was similar to those conveyed to his codefendants, but the assistant State's Attorney then stated that she was mistaken in the offer and that her supervisors had told her that defendant would not be extended the same offer as his codefendants. He further alleged that the State's Attorney's Office had recused itself in the case of Janell Ross, who had an "identical" familial relationship with Hite-Ross. Defendant attached an affidavit from Watkins in which she described her relationship with Hite-Ross. She stated that she had spent nights at the house of Hite-Ross and her uncle when she was young; that Hite-Ross "was there to help with" her dad's funeral; that they went "out [of their] way for Christmas for [her] kids when they" could; and that Hite-Ross had helped her with housing when she was "low on funds."

¶ 11 A hearing on the motion took place on May 30, 2019. Peggy Simmons, defendant's maternal grandmother, provided the following testimony. Hite-Ross married the brother of Watkins' father. Simmons had known Hite-Ross for about 25 years but had seen her in person only a couple of times over that period. Defendant had" [n]ot too much" contact with the Ross family but would" [o]ften" visit the Ross family. Defendant had met Hite-Ross and knew that she was his aunt. Hite-Ross came to the house three to four years prior and brought Christmas gifts for the kids, including defendant. When asked when defendant had contact with Hite-Ross, Simmons replied that "it was about during that time when she brought gifts over." Simmons knew that Watkins had received money from the Ross family because Hite-Ross's husband had called Simmons to verify that Watkins needed it for certain things.

¶ 12 Audrey Ross testified as follows. Defendant was her brother's grandson. Hite-Ross married another brother of Audrey's in 1987. Hite-Ross had known defendant since that time and had seen him at family gatherings and funerals, which occurred "every now and then." The family gatherings had 50 to 100 people. Hite-Ross's husband, "DR," gave the eulogy at the funeral of defendant's grandfather. She was not aware if Watkins had a financial relationship with DR. Audrey was the mother of Janell Ross. The State stipulated that the Attorney General's office handled Janell's prosecution.

¶ 13 Colleen Young testified that defendant's grandfather was her nephew. DR had seen defendant at family gatherings.

¶ 14 Defense counsel argued that the State's Attorney's Office should recuse itself because it had done so in Janell's case, and he had the same relationship to Hite-Ross as defendant, being the grandson of Hite-Ross's brother-in-law.[1] He argued that Watkins had a long relationship with Hite Ross and that Hite-Ross's husband had provided Watkins with financial support. Counsel argued that defendant was prejudiced because there was an appearance of impropriety and because defendant had received a similar offer as his codefendants but it was rescinded. Counsel argued that there was a strong possibility that the State might treat defendant harsher than his codefendants.

¶ 15 The trial court denied the motion for recusal on June 6, 2019; we summarize its findings. Watkins' affidavit did not provide the timing of the financial assistance or any further details, nor did it state how long she had lived in Atlanta and the extent of any contacts with Hite-Ross and her husband in recent years. Defendant was not similarly situated to his codefendants because the State's theory of the case was that defendant fired the fatal shot, and the State had an evidentiary reason to treat defendant differently given the victim's dying declaration identifying defendant as the person who shot him. Defendant had not suffered any actual and substantial prejudice from his and his family's relationship with Hite-Ross. The decision to have the Attorney General's Office prosecute Janell was an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Defendant showed a relationship between his mother and Hite-Ross through Hite-Ross's husband's family, based primarily on attending family functions, but this fell below the "significant emotional ties" standard, and he failed to establish that the alleged interest caused actual and substantial prejudice. As such, defendant failed to meet his initial burden of showing that there was an actual conflict of interest.

¶ 16 B. Trial

¶ 17 Testimony in defendant's trial began on October 22, 2019. We summarize the evidence presented by the State. At about 2:35 p.m. on March 29, 2016, Detective Brian Strawser of the Rockford Police Department was dispatched to a call of "shots fired" at the address of 3231 Parkside Avenue. Several individuals had been seen running from the garage area of the residence. He and Officers Wagner and Schuster entered the side door of the garage, which was slightly ajar. Officer Wagner had a body camera on. Inside, there were numerous spent shell casings throughout the garage, and Smith was laying on the ground with a gunshot wound to his chest or lower abdomen.

¶ 18 The body cam video was played for the jury, and the jury received a transcript of the recording. Detective Strawser had the following exchange with Smith, according to the transcript:

"OFFICER STRAWSER: You're going to die, man. Who shot you:
* * *
[SMITH]: Tavious.
OFFICER STRAWSER: Tavious?
[SMITH]: Yes.
* * *
OFFICER STRAWSER: You said Tavious shot you, right?
[SMITH]: Benford.
OFFICER STRAWSER: Tavious Benford?
[SMITH]: Yes.
* * *
911 OPERATOR: Tavious Benford is going to be a suspect.
OFFICER STRAWSER: Tavious Benford?
[SMITH]: Yes.
OFFICER
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT