People v. Eaglin
586 N.E.2d 1280, 224 Ill. App. 3d 668, 167 Ill. Dec. 8 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Illinois, a defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment if the defendant denies committing one or more of the essential elements of the offense charged.
Facts:
- Kenneth L. Eaglin was engaged in a contentious child custody dispute with Fulton County State’s Attorney, Joan C. Scott.
- During the dispute, Scott pursued perjury charges against Eaglin's wife and parents, and his wife was briefly jailed for contempt.
- An informant, Joseph Roberts, who worked for Eaglin, told Eaglin that Scott had hired a hitman named Paul Long to kill Eaglin's wife.
- Roberts later claimed to have persuaded the hitman to kill Scott instead of Eaglin's wife in exchange for payment.
- Roberts also allegedly threatened that Eaglin's family would be killed if he backed out of the deal.
- Working with law enforcement, Roberts recorded a conversation where Eaglin gave him a newspaper photograph of Scott.
- The next day, Eaglin spoke on the phone with an undercover officer, Gerald Kempf, who was posing as the hitman.
- In the recorded call, Eaglin agreed to pay Kempf $2,000 to carry out the scheme, although he never explicitly stated that he wanted Scott killed.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth L. Eaglin was charged by information with one count of solicitation of murder for hire in a trial court.
- The trial court removed the original prosecutor, the alleged victim Joan Scott, due to a conflict of interest and appointed Kevin Lyons as a special prosecutor.
- Defendant's objection to the appointment of the special prosecutor was overruled by the trial court.
- At trial, the defendant testified and denied having the intent to kill the victim.
- The defense tendered jury instructions on the defense of entrapment, which the trial judge refused.
- A jury found the defendant guilty.
- The trial court sentenced the defendant to 34 years' imprisonment.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant in Illinois have the right to a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment if the defendant denies possessing the requisite intent for the charged offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Gorman
No. A defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on entrapment if the defendant denies committing the charged offense or one of its essential elements. The court followed the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in People v. Gillespie, which reaffirmed the long-standing state rule that a defendant must admit to the commission of the crime to raise the defense of entrapment. While the U.S. Supreme Court held otherwise in Mathews v. United States, the Gillespie court determined that Mathews was not a constitutional ruling and therefore not binding on state courts. In this case, Eaglin repeatedly testified that he did not have the intent to kill Scott, which is a necessary element of solicitation of murder for hire. By denying this essential element, he forfeited his right to an entrapment instruction under Illinois law.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant split between federal and Illinois state law regarding the procedural requirements for an entrapment defense. By adhering to the precedent set in People v. Gillespie, the court confirms that Illinois will not follow the federal rule from Mathews v. United States. This creates a critical strategic choice for criminal defendants in Illinois, forcing them to select between denying the commission of the crime (a factual defense) and admitting the crime but claiming they were induced by the government (an affirmative defense). Unlike in federal court, a defendant in Illinois cannot simultaneously argue both, solidifying a more restrictive approach to the entrapment defense within the state.
