Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of being an armed habitual criminal. Proximity of revolver to Defendant's house, together with Defendant's statement that police did not find it when they search his house in 2009, was sufficient circumstantial evidence of Defendant's continuous possession. Thus, Defendant was proved guilty of being an armed habitual criminal beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus no double jeopardy bar to retrial. Court's instructions to jury on Zehr principles were unclear and inadequate, as court was unclear as to how and what they were to signal with their hands, as to these principles; and court substituted "difficulty or disagreement" for "understand and accept". Thus, court violated Rule 431(b). As evidence was closely balanced, reversal and new trial warranted. (McLAREN, concurring; BURKE, specially concurring.)
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Jury Instructions