People v. Space
Decision Date | 04 May 2018 |
Docket Number | Nos. 1–15–0922,1–15–1171,s. 1–15–0922 |
Citation | 2018 IL App (1st) 150922,103 N.E.3d 1019 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Antwan SPACE, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Michael J. Pelletier, Patricia Mysza, and Jonathan Krieger, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Matthew Conners, and Tyler J. Cox, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 Following a 2007 jury trial, defendant-appellant, Antwan Space, was convicted of first degree murder while attempting or committing a forcible felony other than second degree murder in violation of section 9–1(a)(3) of the Criminal Code of 1961 ( 720 ILCS 5/9–1(a)(3) (West 2002) ) (felony murder), and sentenced to 45 years' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends that (1) his conviction should be reversed because the State did not establish a requisite predicate forcible felony, (2) his conviction should be reversed and the case remanded because the trial court had violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) () during jury selection, and (3) his mittimus should be corrected to reflect four additional days of presentencing custody credit. We reverse defendant's conviction for felony murder based on the State's failure to prove both that the asserted predicate forcible felony of aggravated battery with a firearm (1) had an independent felonious purpose and (2) proximately resulted in the victim's death, and we remand the case for a new sentencing hearing on the lesser-included offense of aggravated battery with a firearm.
¶ 2 Defendant was arrested on August 12, 2002, in connection with the August 9, 2002, shootings of cousins Mitchell Barrow and Virgil Thomas. The shootings were witnessed by Tiffany Allen, who was dating Mr. Barrow, and Debra Alexander. Defendant, the ex-boyfriend of Ms. Allen, twice shot Mr. Barrow and then, as Mr. Thomas assisted Mr. Barrow, shot Mr. Thomas. Mr. Barrow died as a result of the injuries he suffered from the gunshots. Mr. Thomas survived. Defendant was charged by indictment with 12 counts of first degree murder as to Mr. Barrow, as well as two counts of attempt (first degree murder), one count of aggravated battery with a firearm, and one count of aggravated battery as to Mr. Thomas.
¶ 3 Before trial, pursuant to defendant's motions, the trial court suppressed his postarrest statements. This decision was affirmed on interlocutory appeal. People v. Space , No. 1–05–1811, 366 Ill.App.3d 1225, 340 Ill.Dec. 153, 927 N.E.2d 892 (2007) (unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 ).
¶ 4 The State proceeded to trial on a single count of first degree murder, which charged that defendant "without lawful justification shot and killed Mitchell Barrow with a firearm during the commission of a forcible felony, to wit: aggravated battery with a firearm" (count 11). All other charges were nol-prossed.
¶ 5 At the start of voir dire , the trial court addressed the entire venire as follows:
¶ 6 To the first panel of 14 prospective jurors as a whole, the court said:
¶ 7 Immediately afterward, the State asked the entire panel:
¶ 8 The court dismissed 7 jurors from the first panel and proceeded to question another panel of 14 prospective jurors. The court asked the entire panel the following:
¶ 9 The State then asked the panel:
¶ 10 After selecting five more jurors and two alternate jurors from this group, the trial commenced.
¶ 11 In its opening statement, the State presented an overview of its case and the evidence. The State related that defendant was "inspired by jealousy" of Mr. Barrow's relationship with Ms. Allen and his "motive on that night was to murder Mitchell Barrow." Defendant "exacted his intention to get rid of" Mr. Barrow when he took out a handgun and fired it. After twice shooting Mr. Barrow, defendant's "mission of murder was already accomplished." After that, Mr. Thomas attempted to "get [Mr. Barrow] away from [the] clutches of defendant." Defendant "didn't stop there"; rather he "continued to walk toward [Mr. Barrow and Mr. Thomas] and shoot at [Mr. Barrow] as [Mr. Thomas] was trying to do nothing more but carry him to safety." The State finished its opening statement by telling the jurors that, at the close of evidence, it would ask them to "find [defendant] guilty of the two crimes that he committed that night, the aggravated battery of Virgil Thomas and the first-degree murder of Mitchell Barrow."
¶ 12 The testimony of Mr. Thomas, Ms. Allen, and Debra Alexander provided a background and a description of the shootings, as follows.
¶ 13 Ms. Allen, at the time of the shooting, had been dating Mr. Barrow, the father of two of her children, for four years and lived with him. Ms. Allen had known defendant for years and previously dated him.
¶ 14 During the week leading up to the shootings, Mr. Thomas went with Mr. Barrow to pick up Ms. Allen near the intersection of Douglas Boulevard and Homan Avenue in Chicago. Defendant was there with Ms. Allen, and Mr. Thomas heard defendant tell her that he loved her. Ms. Allen ultimately chose not to get into Mr. Barrow's vehicle. Mr. Barrow became angry and drove away. Later in the week, Mr. Thomas saw defendant with Ms. Allen two additional times.
¶ 15 On the evening of August 9, 2002, Mr. Barrow drove Mr. Thomas, Ms. Allen, Ms. Alexander, and a woman named Kathy to Douglas Park in Chicago. Mr. Barrow parked his vehicle near an area of the park where there were three concrete tables, surrounded by four benches and four or five "real bright" lights. The group exited the vehicle and entered the park. Mr. Thomas and Ms. Alexander, who were dating, sat at one table; Ms. Allen sat at a table next to them. Kathy and Mr. Barrow first sat on a bench and later stood and talked on the nearby sidewalk.
¶ 16 The witnesses testified that they consumed some alcohol prior to the shootings. Mr. Thomas initially testified that he drank "a shot" before acknowledging that he had "some drinks." He maintained that he was not drunk and that his consumption of alcohol did not affect what he saw or heard that night. Ms. Allen testified that she had "not even a half cup" of cognac. Ms. Alexander related that she had "maybe two sips" of cognac.
¶ 17 After a while, two men and a young woman approached the group; one of the men had braids in his hair and was wearing a T-shirt and shorts. Mr. Thomas, in his testimony, identified this individual as defendant. Ms. Allen testified that defendant was one of the men who approached the group that night but that, in all the years she had known defendant, she had never seen his hair in "dreadlocks," "cornrows," or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCoy v. People
...(Ct. App. 2013) (noting that "sufficiency of the evidence may be raised for the first time on appeal"); People v. Space , 422 Ill.Dec. 655, 103 N.E.3d 1019, 1027–28 (App. Ct. 2018) (rejecting the state’s argument that the defendant had forfeited his sufficiency of the evidence claim by not ......
-
People v. Castillo
...that an error occurred. Id. ¶ 33 ; People v. Walker , 232 Ill. 2d 113, 124, 327 Ill.Dec. 570, 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009) ; People v. Space , 2018 IL App (1st) 150922, ¶ 63, 422 Ill.Dec. 655, 103 N.E.3d 1019. We need not engage in a plain error analysis here because no error occurred.¶ 41 Castill......