People v. McChristian
1974 Ill. App. LEXIS 2779, 18 Ill. App. 3d 87, 309 N.E. 2d 388 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To sustain a conviction for conspiracy, the State must prove that the defendant had the specific intent to commit the particular offense charged as the object of the conspiracy; proof of a conspiracy against one person cannot sustain a charge of conspiracy against a larger, specific group of individuals.
Facts:
- David Barksdale, the leader of the Disciples street gang, was driving a car with four companions: William Gaddy, James Hall, Tyrone Withers, and Mitchell Newton.
- Three plain-clothes police officers stopped and searched Barksdale's car, found no weapons, and then followed the vehicle.
- Andrew McChristian and Melvin Bailey, members of the rival Blackstone Rangers gang, were together on South Ellis Avenue.
- As Barksdale's car slowed down and stopped on the street, McChristian heard someone shout, "...here comes David!"
- A volley of gunshots erupted from both sides of the street, with officers observing at least ten to thirteen people firing guns.
- An officer saw Bailey fire a gun four or five times directly at Barksdale's car, and another officer saw McChristian fire a gun once in the car's direction.
- Later at a police station, Bailey said to Barksdale, "We didn’t get you this time," to which McChristian chuckled and added, "We will get him next time."
- No one was injured during the incident, and no bullet holes were found on Barksdale's car.
Procedural Posture:
- Andrew McChristian, Melvin Bailey, and Edward Dinkins were charged in a sixteen-count indictment that included attempts to murder five individuals and conspiracy to murder the same five individuals.
- At trial, the trial court directed a verdict of acquittal for Edward Dinkins at the close of the State's case.
- A jury found co-defendant Melvin Bailey guilty of the attempts to murder and conspiracy.
- The same jury acquitted Andrew McChristian of the five attempt-to-murder charges but found him guilty of conspiracy to murder.
- The trial court sentenced McChristian to seven to fourteen years imprisonment.
- McChristian (appellant) appealed his conspiracy conviction to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.
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 the evidence prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of conspiracy to murder five specific individuals when the State failed to present any evidence that the defendant knew four of the five individuals were present or intended to murder them?
Opinions:
Majority - Leighton, J.
No. To sustain a conviction for conspiracy, the object of the conspiracy must be proved as laid out in the indictment. The indictment specifically charged a conspiracy to murder five named individuals. Therefore, the State had to prove not only that McChristian intended to murder David Barksdale, but that he also knew Barksdale's four companions were in the car and specifically intended to murder them as well. The record contains no evidence of such knowledge or intent. The State's evidence only demonstrated that McChristian knew Barksdale and his car and showed ill will toward him. A conspiracy against a single person cannot sustain a charge of conspiracy against a larger group. Furthermore, the jury's acquittal of McChristian on the five attempt-to-murder charges is logically inconsistent with its conviction for conspiracy to murder the same five people, as the acquittal negates the finding that the overt act of shooting was done with the specific intent to kill the five occupants.
Dissenting - Downing, J.
Yes, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find a conspiracy, and the case should be remanded for a new trial due to other trial errors. The majority reverses based on a theory that the defendant did not argue on appeal. While the jury's verdicts may be logically inconsistent, they are not legally inconsistent, which is the standard under Illinois law as established in People v. Hairston. Logical consistency is not required for verdicts to stand. There was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a jury could infer the existence of a conspiracy between McChristian and Bailey to commit the acts as charged. The proper course of action is to reverse and remand for a new trial because of trial errors that affected both McChristian and his co-defendant, not to reverse the conviction outright for insufficient evidence.
Analysis:
This case establishes a stringent standard for prosecutors in conspiracy cases, emphasizing that the proof must match the specific object of the conspiracy alleged in the indictment. It clarifies that a defendant's generalized criminal intent or intent towards one person is insufficient to prove a conspiracy to harm a larger, specifically named group. The decision also explores the significance of logically inconsistent verdicts, suggesting that while not legally fatal, they can be used to show that the prosecution failed to prove an essential element of the crime. This precedent makes it more difficult to secure conspiracy convictions where the defendant's specific knowledge and intent regarding all named victims cannot be definitively proven.
