Defendant was convicted of armed robbery with a firearm and was sentenced to 25 years. During the trial, the trial court judge allowed the State to present scent trail and DNA testimony linking the defendant to the crime, but subsequently held that the DNA evidence lacked sufficient foundation and instructed the jury to disregard it. During deliberations, the jury sent out questions relating to the scent trail evidence and indicated it could not reach a verdict. The court gave the Prim instruction. Defendant appealed arguing that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a mistrial and that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to improper dog-tracking evidence. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court’s failure to grant defendant’s motion for a mistrial was plain error where the court gave the Prim instruction and the jury later said it could not reach a unanimous agreement. The court also noted that on remand the parties should follow the Supreme Court’s precedent regarding the use of dog-tracking evidence, which was prohibited in People v. Cruz. (HUDSON and BIRKETT, concurring)
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Jury Deliberations