People v. Smith
296 Ill. App. 3d 435, 230 Ill. Dec. 712, 694 N.E.2d 681 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court does not abuse its discretion by instructing a jury that it cannot find a defendant guilty of a lesser included offense if it has already found that the state has proven all elements of the greater offense beyond a reasonable doubt, as a defendant has no right to a jury nullification instruction.
Facts:
- Dee M. Smith was taking prescribed psychotropic medications, specifically Effexor and Xanax, for symptoms of depression and anxiety around the time of her trial.
- Smith was involved in an incident with another individual, Michelle Ray.
- During this incident, Smith knowingly caused bodily harm to Ray without legal justification.
- The incident occurred on or about a public place of amusement.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Illinois charged Dee M. Smith with aggravated battery in the circuit court of Sangamon County.
- At trial, Smith's counsel did not request a fitness hearing, and the court did not order one on its own initiative.
- During deliberations, the jury sent a note to the trial judge asking if, after finding all elements of aggravated battery were proven, they could still find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense of battery.
- Over a defense objection, the judge instructed the jury that the answer to its question was 'no'.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Smith guilty of aggravated battery.
- The trial court sentenced Smith to 24 months of probation.
- Smith, as appellant, appealed her conviction and sentence to the Illinois Appellate Court, arguing the trial court erred in its response to the jury's question and that she was denied effective assistance of counsel.
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 trial court abuse its discretion by answering 'no' when a jury, having found all elements of a greater offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt, asks if it has the option to convict on a lesser included offense instead?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McCullough
No, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by answering 'no' in this situation. The court's response was a direct, correct statement of the law based on the instructions the jury had already been given. While juries possess the power of nullification, a defendant has no right to have the jury instructed on this power or to have them defy the law. The trial court has a duty to provide supplemental instructions to clarify confusion, and by directly answering the jury's question in accordance with the law, the court fulfilled this duty and did not abuse its discretion.
Concurring - Justice Steigmann
No, the trial court's response was correct because the concept of jury nullification is intellectually bankrupt and has no legitimate place in the justice system. If a jury is free to disregard the law to acquit, it is also free to disregard instructions that protect the accused, such as the presumption of innocence or the burden of proof. Allowing nullification invites verdicts based on prejudice rather than law and ignores the disgraceful historical episodes where it was used to acquit those guilty of heinous crimes against civil rights protesters. The justice system requires juries to follow the law as laid down by the court, not to substitute their own notions of justice.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical distinction between a jury's raw power to nullify and a defendant's lack of any legal right to that nullification. It affirms the trial judge's role as the sole source of law in the courtroom and empowers judges to provide direct, legally accurate answers to jury inquiries, even when those inquiries touch on the jury's desire for lenity. The strong concurring opinion provides a powerful argument against the legitimacy of jury nullification itself, offering a basis for future courts to reject any attempts to formalize or encourage the practice. This case solidifies the principle that the jury's duty is to apply the law to the facts, not to question the law itself.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Smith