(Special concurrence added 2/27/19.) Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of defacing identification marks of a firearm, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) based on not having a currently valid license under Concealed Carry Act, and AUUW based on not having a currently valid FOID card. Court's answer to jury's question, that the knowledge requirement applied to possession of weapon and not to defacement of weapon's serial number, correctly stated the law and did not express opinion on issue of fact. State provided evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knowingly possessed a firearm through testimonies of officers, and also sufficient to prove that he was guilty of defacing identification marks of a firearm. Officer's testimony that location of arrest was a location known for high volume narcotics sales was innocuous foundation for subsequent events and allowed jury to understand why officers were in the area. State elicited testimony about dangerous character of hollow point bullets, but character of bullets is not an element of any of the charged offenses, and testimony was highly prejudicial and confuses and misleads the jury, and is clear error. Lengthy jury deliberations and jury notes during deliberations that they were at impasse show the closely balanced nature of evidence. (FITZGERALD SMITH, concurring; ELLIS, specially concurring.)
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Weapons