People v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 21 October 2010
• Docket Number: No. 109033.,109033.
• Citation: 939 N.E.2d 403,345 Ill.Dec. 560,238 Ill.2d 598
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant,v.Angelo THOMPSON, Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

238 Ill.2d 598

939 N.E.2d 403

345 Ill.Dec. 560

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant,

v.Angelo THOMPSON, Appellee.

No. 109033.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 21, 2010.

Lisa Madigan, Atty. Gen., of Springfield, Anita Alvarez, State's Atty., of Chicago (James E. Fitzgerald, Eve Reilly, Robin Murphy, Alan J. Spellberg, Peter D. Fisher, Asst. State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Def., Patricia Unsinn, Deputy Def., Elena B. Penick, Asst. Appellate Def., of Office of State Appellate Def., of Chicago, for appellee.

[345 Ill.Dec. 563 , 238 Ill.2d 601] OPINION

Justice KILBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Defendant Angelo Thompson was convicted of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (720 ILCS 5/24–1.6(a) (West 2004)) and sentenced to one year in prison. The appellate court reversed defendant's conviction based on the trial court's violation of Supreme Court Rule 431(b). Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 8 (April 11, 2007), R. 431(b), eff. May 1, 2007.

We allowed the State's petition for leave to appeal (210 Ill.2d R. 315(a)). We hold that the appellate court erred in reversing defendant's conviction based on a violation of Supreme Court Rule 431(b). Accordingly, we reverse the appellate court's judgment and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged with six counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. A jury was selected on May 16, 2007. At that time, Supreme Court Rule 431(b) required the trial court to ask each potential juror whether he understood and accepted that defendant was presumed innocent of the charge, the State had the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant was not required to present

[345 Ill.Dec. 564 , 939 N.E.2d 407]

any evidence, and his decision against testifying could not be held against him. Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 8 (April 11, 2007), R. 431(b), eff. May 1, 2007. During jury selection, the trial court informed the prospective jurors as a group that:

“Under the law, defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charge against him. This presumption remains with him throughout every stage of the trial and during your deliberations on a verdict and it is not overcome unless from all the evidence, you're convinced beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty. [The] State has the burden of proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden remains on [the] State throughout the case. Defendant is not required to prove his innocence, nor is he required to present any evidence on his own behalf, simply rely on his presumption of innocence.”

The trial court asked the prospective jurors individually if the nature of the charge against defendant would affect their ability to be fair and impartial. The court then asked them individually whether they understood the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence. The court did not ask any of the prospective jurors whether they accepted those principles. The trial court, however, asked each of the prospective jurors substantially as follows: “[i]f at the end of all the evidence you felt the State had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, would you have any problem signing a guilty verdict” and “[i]f, on the other hand, you felt they had not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt, would you have any problem signing a not guilty verdict.”

The trial court did not ask any of the prospective jurors if they understood or accepted that defendant was not required to offer any evidence, but instructed one of them that “[u]nder the presumption of innocence, the defense need not present any evidence.” The court further asked the prospective jurors individually whether their ability to be fair and impartial would be affected if defendant chose not to testify.

Defendant's attorney did not make any objections during voir dire, but asked one of the prospective jurors whether he understood that defendant had a right not to testify and the choice against testifying could not be held against the defendant. The prospective juror responded that he understood and accepted that principle.

Following selection of the jury, the testimony at trial established that Chicago police officers Antonio Rosas and Roman Zawada were on patrol driving a marked police truck on January 13, 2005. They responded to an emergency call at approximately 9:19 p.m. When they arrived, the officers observed three men standing outside a two-flat residential building. Defendant was standing on the porch stairs and the officers recognized him as a person wanted for questioning by Chicago police detectives. The officers exited the truck and announced their office. Defendant began running toward the front door of the residence. Officer Rosas followed defendant while Officer Zawada detained one of the other men outside the residence.

As Officer Rosas entered the vestibule of the residence, he observed defendant remove a black steel-handled handgun from his waistband and toss it to the floor. Rosas testified he observed defendant from the back and saw defendant's right hand reaching toward his waistband before defendant threw the handgun. Officer Rosas testified he clearly saw a gun in defendant's hand and was within 10 feet of defendant when he tossed the gun.

[939 N.E.2d 408 , 345 Ill.Dec. 565]

Rosas forced defendant against the wall and detained him. He then observed Officer John Kovacs, who was part of an assisting unit, retrieve the handgun from the floor. Officer Kovacs unloaded the handgun and placed it in his waistband.

Officer Rosas testified that the handgun was not cased or registered, defendant did not have a firearm owner's identification card or military identification, and defendant reported that he lived at a different address than where the arrest occurred. On cross-examination, Rosas testified that he did not see a handgun when he first observed defendant. Rosas also stated that he did not see where the gun was concealed in the front part of defendant's waistband or where defendant pulled the gun from.

Officer Kovacs testified that when he arrived, he observed Officer Rosas chasing a subject into the residence. Kovacs ran inside the residence and saw Rosas holding defendant against the wall. Rosas directed Kovacs to pick up a gun from the floor. The gun was located about two feet from Rosas. Kovacs recovered the handgun and unloaded nine live rounds from the weapon. Kovacs testified there were no people in the vestibule during these events other than Rosas and defendant, and the area was lit with artificial lighting.

Defendant did not testify or present any witnesses in his defense. After closing arguments, the trial court instructed the jury, in pertinent part, that:

“The defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charge against him. This presumption remains with him throughout every stage of the trial and during your deliberations on the verdict, and is not overcome unless from all the evidence in this case, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

The State has the burden of proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and this burden remains on the State throughout the case. The defendant is not required to prove his innocence. The fact that the defendant did not testify must not be considered by you in any way in arriving at your verdict.”

The jury found defendant guilty of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial but did not include any claim that the trial court failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 431(b). The trial court denied defendant's motion and sentenced him to one year in prison.

On appeal, defendant argued his conviction must be reversed because the trial court failed to comply with Rule 431(b). The appellate court noted that defendant did not object to the alleged violation of Rule 431(b) at trial or include it in his posttrial motion but determined that the alleged error was subject to plain-error review. The appellate court concluded that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to comply with Rule 431(b). Accordingly, the appellate court reversed defendant's conviction and remanded for a new trial. No. 1–07–2891 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

II. ANALYSIS

On appeal to this court, the State contends that a violation of Supreme Court Rule 431(b) is not structural error requiring automatic reversal. The State asserts that although this court's decision in People v. Glasper, 234 Ill.2d 173, 334 Ill.Dec. 575, 917 N.E.2d 401 (2009), addressed a previous version of Rule 431(b), the reasoning of that case also applies to the amended rule involved in this appeal. In accordance with Glasper, failure to comply

[345 Ill.Dec. 566 , 939 N.E.2d 409]

with the amended rule is not per se reversible error. The State also contends that defendant forfeited his claim of error and it is not reviewable under either prong of the plain-error rule. Finally, the State contends that the trial court's questioning complied substantially with the requirements of Rule 431(b).

Defendant responds that the trial court's questioning fell far short of the Rule 431(b) requirements and a bright-line rule of reversal should apply for failure to comply with the rule. Alternatively, defendant contends that the violation of amended Rule 431(b) is reversible under the second prong of plain-error review because it affected the fairness of the trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process. Defendant further argues the forfeiture rule should be relaxed because “a judge's conduct was at issue” and he is entitled to a new trial because the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

In addressing the parties' arguments, we must first determine whether the trial court violated Supreme Court Rule 431(b). This issue involves construction of the rule. The...