FIFTH DIVISION March 26, 2010 No. 1-08- 3499 PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) 05 CR 08886 ) SHA WN GA RRETT, ) ) De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Ho no r ab le

) Vincent M. G aug han, ) Judge Presidin

g. JU STI CELA

VI N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: In thi s c as e, we c ons i der th e a

ppe al of a rob be ry ge taw ay dri ve r wh o wa s c onv

i cte d of fi rst-degree murder on a theory of a ccountabili

ty af ter an empl

oyee i n the targeted sto re was found s hot t o death by

a gun that was ne

ver recovered. Followi

ng a j ury tri al , defen

dant Shawn Gar re t t was fou nd gu ilty and se nt ence d t o 3 6 year s' impriso nment. On ap pea l, de fendant
co nt ends t hat : ( 1) he wa s no t pr ove n guilt y beyond a re aso nable do ubt ; (2 ) t he t rial co ur t er re d by refusi ng to suppress hi s vi

deotaped st atemen

t; and (3) his sen

tence was ex

cessi ve. Becaus e we ult imat ely r ev er se o n d efe nd an t 's c o nt en t io n t ha t he wa s no t pr o ve n g uilt y beyo nd a r ea so na ble do ub t , it is u nne ce ss ar y fo rus t o ad dr es s his r ema ining ar gu men t s. We will t he r efo r e r ec it e o nly those facts ne cessary

for our considerati on of that sin gle is sue. BACK GROUND All o f t he fac t s o f t his c as e o cc ur r ed o n t he so ut he as t sid e o f t he cit y o f Ch ica go , wh er e a ll of the cri m i na l protagoni

sts l i ve d an d where the cri

me sc ene, a F am

i l y Dol l ar Store, wa s l

ocated.1-08-3499

2

The vi cti m , Marc el

Hun t, was a stock m anager a t the F am i l y Dol l ar Store on East 79th Street. He was sh

ot and ki ll ed i n the store on Decemb er 20, 2004. The Stat e sought to prove that Sh aw n G ar r et t wa s g uilt y o f fir st - de gr ee felo ny mu r de run de rt he t he o ry o f ac co un t ab ilit y fo rhis rol e i n th e p l an n i n g of a robb er y of th e F am i l y Dol l ar . G ar re tt wa s r om an ti ca l l y i n v ol v ed wi th Lat onya D ext ra , a lso k now n as Ma ria, a wo man who wo rk ed a t t he disc ou nt st or e. Dext ra 's da ug ht er , Do llena , ha d a bo yfrie nd na med De mo nt e B o lde n. Bo lde n a nd his b r o t he r , De mar io had a cousi

n na me d Tim ot hy Burto n. These three teen agers socia

li zed at Dextra's house, wh ic h
wasl ocated n

ear the Fa m i l y Dol l ar. Ov

er the course of s ev eral

meeti ngs , Garrett and the others dis cu ss ed va r io us as pe ct s o f a p lan ne d r o bbe ry o f t he st o r e, en list ing t he insid e a ss ist an ce o f his gi rlf rien d a n d u ti l izi n g th e y oun g m en to pe rf orm th e actual

rob b er y . G ar re tt hi m se l f wa s to contact t he el

der Dextra whi

le she was working an

d determi ne a conv eni ent tim e to r ob the store, whi ch would occur w

hi l e Dex tra was secreti ng h erse l f i n a nothe r part of the store. Acco rd ing t o D ext ra 's da ught er , o n Dec ember 2 0, 200 4, t he Bo lden br ot her s, G ar re t t and Bu rton were a t he r m othe r' s h ous e s i tti ng at a di ni ng room tab l e tal ki ng to each othe r. Sh e di d n ot h ea r the s pe ci f i c s ub j ect m atte r of th e c on v er sa ti on , but G ar

re tt told h er th at th ey were"a b out to go h an dl e s om e b us i n es s. " A pp rox i mate l y 30 m i n ute s l ate r, def en da n t re tur n ed i n h i s c ar wi th Demo nt e Bo lden and t old Do llena to go t o t he Family Dollar t o s ee w hat was happ ening. Do llena
wen t to t he store, sa w tha t the pol i ce a nd a n a m bul ance we re the re an d then returne d hom

e. Do llen a t es t ifie d t ha t sh e d id no t se e d ef

en da nt o ran y o f t he o t he r s w it h a gu n t ha t da y. Officer T ra cy Ro ger s t est ifi ed t hat at ar ou nd 11 :3 0 a. m. o n t he da y of t he incident , he happen ed to be on patro l i

n the v ic in ity of the Fam

il y D ollar on 79th Street . As he approached1-08-3499

3

t he st or e, an emplo yee st anding o ut side mad e a g est ur e su gge st ing t hat so mething was happ ening in side the store. Offi

cer Rogers entered the store t o inv estigate and h

e saw two indi

vi dual s, at least one of w hom he r eco gnized and w ho w er e lat er ident ifi ed a s Bu rt on a nd De mario Bo lden, quic kly exi t. Offi cer Rogers followed them out side and cal

le d for them

to stop. Af

ter Off ic er Rogers ad dressed t he two, they "grabbed thei r sides and stuff

, and then they too k off runni ng." Off ic er Rogers did n

ot actuall y s ee any guns at the tim

e, but testifi

ed that he "bel

ie ved" they ma y ha ve be en carry i ng g uns be caus e of

the w ay they grab be d the sidesof thei

r pan ts. A f ter th e tw o ran, Of

f i cer Rog ers

i m medi ate l y cal l ed f or b ac kup an d pu rs ue d them

on foo t . D ur ing t he cha se, Officer R og er s los t sight of t he t wo at var iou s t imes, but at one po int he
sa w D ema r io Bo lde n c limbing o ve ra fe nc e w it h a gu n in h is ha nd
. Offic er Ro ge r s mo men t ar ily lost sight of hi

m, b ut after turning a

corner, he saw that two o ther offi cers had appreh

ended Dem ario and that there was a gun on the ground. On cross-exam in ation, Of fi cer Rogers admi

tt ed t ha t he ne ve rsa w d efe nd an t Ga rr et t o n t he da y o f t he inc ide nt , sa w n o illeg al c o nd uc t o cc ur r ing in the Fam il y D ollar and he ard no gunsh ot s comi ng f rom the store. Off ic er Theresa A

lm anza testif

ie d that she responded to Off ic er Rogers' cal

l f or assistance and ass is ted in the pursuit. She obtai

ned a desc

ripti on of an i

ndi vi dual to pursue, whom s

he l ater le arned was De

ma rio Bolden

, and eve ntuall y l ocated him. As sh

e approached hi

m, sh e saw a gun in hi s han d and ordered hi

m to drop it. He compli

ed and was

pla ced i nto custo dy b

y O ff ic er Al ma nza' s partner. Durin

g cross-exam

in ation, Of fi cer Al ma nza adm itted that she nev

er saw De mar io sh o o t t he gu n, co mmit ar med r o bbe ry o rt hr ea t en an yo ne fo rmo ne y. Off icer John Jackson testifi

ed that he receiv

ed a call for assistance f

rom Off icer Rogers,1-08-3499

4

promptin g hi m to respond. As he approached the area of the i nci dent, he saw Of

fi cer Al ma nza and other off

ic ers pl aci ng Dem ario Bolde

n i nto custo dy. W

hi le this was happe

ni ng, Of fi cer Jac kso n re t rieved and lat er invento ried t he gu n. H e t est ifi ed t hat when he invento ried t he gu n, he
mark ed i t wi th h i s i ni ti als to al l ow h

i m to i denti f y i t l ater. D uri

ng tri al , howeve

r, O f f i cer J ac ks on co uld no t find his in it ials o n t he gu n w he n he wa s a sk ed t o ide nt ify it , alt ho ug h he st ill belie ve d it was the sam

e gun h e had recovered. Detecti v e Joh n Otto te sti

f i ed th at on De cem b er 20 , 20 04 , he w as

as si gn ed to i n v esti ga te the vi ctim 's m urder and went to t he Fa

mi ly Doll ar. Whi le at the sto re, he proceeded to a storage area i n the rear of the store where he saw the vi

ctim 's b ody bl ockin g a bathroom that Maria

was in. De t ect ive Ot t o w as e vent ually able to briefly speak wit h Mar ia and a t t hat t ime believed she
was a wit ness. Det ect ive Ot t o a lso int er viewed Do uglas Her d, t he manag er at t he st or e o n t he da y of the i nc i dent, wh

o rel ate d that n

o one ha d de man de d or th rea ten ed hi m wi th a gun f or
m oney. Li ttl e e l se tran sp i red f or th e n ex t threemonth

s u nti l Ma rch 16, 200 5, w

he n Burton ap pe ar ed fo ra c o ur t da t e o n a n u nr ela t ed mat t er . De t ec t ive Ot t o lea rne d o f t his a he ad o f t ime
and was ab l e to spea

k wi th h i m . Af ter spe aki ng w i th h i m , Detec tiv

es O tto, Sandoval

and A yers procee ded to a re siden

ce l ocated a t 8210 South

Muskegon

Av en ue. De tecti ve s Otto and

Ay ers went to t he f

ront o f the resi

dence wh ere they spoke with Ma

ria, wh o agreed to go t o t he polic e stati on. Det ect ive Sand ova l tes t ifi ed t hat when he ar rived at t he r eside nce o n So ut h Mus keg on, he approac he d the rear of the re siden

ce f rom a n a l l ey and sa w def endan t wal ki ng out the b ack g ate.1-08-3499

5

Defe ndan t agreed to accompan

y D etective San

doval to the police station, where def endan t was arrest ed and giv

en his Mi randa right s. At so me po int, Det ect ive Sand ova l sear ched defend ant and fou nd a no t e wit h t he wo rd "safe " next t o a gr ou p o f numbers , a s we ll as vario us na mes (includ ing Ma ria 's) and o t her numb er s. It wa s lat er dis co ver ed t hat t he " sa fe" numb er s w er e c o de s fo r a sa fe at a n oth er Fa m i l y Dol l ar sto rewh ere M ari a h

ad b een tra n sf er re d a f ter th e k i l l i n g of Ma rc el Hu n t. Dur ing his first co nver sat ion wit h t he de t ect ives, d efenda nt denied any involvement in the vi cti m's m urder b ut s ai d that he h

ad he ard tha t Bu rton an d the B ol den b

roth ers ha d pl an ne d to rob t he Family Dollar o n 79t h St re et . D ur ing a lat er co nver sat ion, defend ant aga in denied a ny in volv em ent in the vi ctim 's m urder. Detect iv

e Sandoval

then i nf ormed hi m that others had i m pli cated h i m , whi ch provoke d def

endan t to do some s oul

sea rch i ng, a nd d uri ng a thi rd
co nver sat ion wit h t he de t ect ive, G ar re t t allowe d t hat t he t hre e t eens ask ed him for a r ide t o t he Family Do llar and t hat he kne w t hey wer e go ing t o r ob it . H e t hen exp lained t hat aft er he dr op ped t hem off, he wa ited in the p ar king lo t for a t ime and left wit h one of t he you ng men who had f le d the store and jum

ped i nto his car. Af ter t hi s conversa

tion, Ass is

tant St ate's Attorney Fr en ze l ar ri v ed at th e p oli ce sta ti on an d s poke wi th de f en da n t. D uri n g th i s c on v er sa ti on , G ar re tt ad m i tted h i s i n v ol v em en t i n th e a ttem pte d robb er

y of th e F am i l y Dol l ar an d ul ti mate l y ag re ed to gi v e a v i de otap ed

sta tem en t. Cid Dr isi, a fo re nsic exp er t in fi re ar m to ol mar k ident ifi

cat ion, t est ifi

ed t hat he r ece ived t he followi ng i tems i n relation to t hi s case: a gun, three unf ired .30-cal

ib er cartridges an

d a fi red bul le t. He t estif

ie d that he "could n

ot ide ntif y or el im in ate" the fi red bul le t as havi ng be en f ired fro m the invent or ied gu n.1-08-3499

6

Near the end of

the Stat e's cas e-in

-chief, def endan t's vi deotaped st atemen

t was presented t o t he jur y. I n it , de fen da nt st at ed t ha t he wa s 2 5 ye ar s o ld a nd we nt t o hig h sc ho o l t hr o ug h his jun ior y ear. He stated t hat in

the months

prior to t he i

nci dent, he, Maria, Burto n an d the Bolden bro t her s discu ssed ro bbing t he Family Dollar o n 79t h St re et on s ix or seve n oc cas ions. The par t icular st or e wa s cho sen be cau se Ma ria w or ked t her e. Defend ant st at ed t hat he wa s t o be t he dr ive ran d t ha t o n t he da y o f t he inc ide nt , he dr o pp ed t he t hr ee t ee na ge bo ys o ff at t he Fa mily Dol l ar. Al

though he wassupp osed to rem

ai n a t the l ocati on, he drove awa

y but returne d a short whi le la ter. Upo n returni

ng, he pi cked up the f

le ei ng Dem onte Bolden an

d le ft the area. Af

ter dropping that Bolden

brother off, h

e cl ai me d that he returned to the Fam il y D ollar and saw that the other brot her had b een arrested. Def endan t did not men

tion that any

one had a gun

or t hat t hey had s pec ifi

cally planned t o u se a wea po n. Af ter t he State presented its ev ide nce, def endan t made a m

ot ion f or a directed verdict which wa s de nied. The defens e t hen r est ed w itho ut pr ese nt ing any witne sses . T he jur y found defen dant guil ty of f irst-degree m

urder based on a theory

of accountabi

li ty an d he was subse quently

sentence d to 36 ye ars' i

mprisonm ent. This tim el y a ppeal fol lowed. AN AL YSIS On ap pe al, de fen da nt firs t co nt en ds t ha t t he St at e' s e vid en ce did no t es t ab lish h is g uilt beyond a r eas ona ble do ubt . G iven the fact t hat t he St at e did no t offer evidenc e t hat pr ove d t he i den ti ty of th e s pe ci f i c p er son wh o sh ot an d k i l l ed Mr . Hun t, w e a recon strai n ed to ag re e th at, unde r t his fact ually and lega lly insufficient p ro of, Gar re t t canno t be cr imi nally acco unt able for t he
m urder.1-08-3499

7

Whe n a de fen da nt ch alle ng es t he su fficie nc y o f t he ev ide nc e t o su pp o r t his c o nvic t io n, t his court mus t deter mi ne, af ter viewi ng the ev ide nce i n the l igh t most favorabl

e to t he State, whether any rational trier of f act could hav

e found the e ssen

tial el em ents of the off

ense b ey ond a
reas onab l e doubt. People v . Poll ock , 202 Ill . 2d 189, 217 (2002). Wh il e the weight to be gi

ven t o t he t est imony, t he cr edibility of t he wit nesse s, t he r eso lut ion o f co nfli ct ing t est imony, and t he
re as on ab l e i

n f eren ce s to b e d

ra wn f rom th e ev i den ce

are th e res ponsi b i l i ty of th e tr i er of f act, i ts determi nation i s nev ertheles s not conclus iv

e and we wi

ll reverse a conv

iction whe

re the evi dence is so unr eas ona ble, impro bable, or unsa t isfact or y as t o ju st ify re aso nable do ubt of d efenda nt 's gui l t. Pe o ple v. Williams , 383 Il l . Ap p. 3d 59 6, 637 ( 2008)
. In th e c as e a

t b ar , de f en da n t wa s f oun d g ui l ty of f i rs t de gr ee m urder u n der a cc oun

tab i l i ty pri nci pl es. A person i s legal l y accoun table f or the cri m i nal conduct of

another wh

en: "[ B] ef oreor d uri n g th e c om m i ss i on of an of f ense , a n d w i th th e i n ten t to pr om ote or facili tate such comm

is si on, he soli

ci ts, aids, ab ets, agrees or at tempts to aid, such other pers on i n the pl an ni ng or c omm

i ssi on of the of f en se. 7 20 IL CS 5/5 -2(c) (W est 200 4). To show accountabil

ity, the Stat e was requi

red to establ

is h be yond a reasonabl

e doubt that: ( 1) de f en da nt s ol i ci ted , ord ere d, a

be tted, agree d or a

ttem pte d to ai d a

noth er i n th e p l an ni ng or com m i ss i on of the cri me; (2) de f

en da nt' s p arti ci pa ti on took pl ac e b ef ore or dur i ng the com m i ss i on of t he cr ime; and ( 3) t he de fendant had t he co ncur re nt intent t o p ro mot e o r fac ili t at e t he
com m i ssi on of the cri me. People v . Perez , 189 Il l . 2d 254 , 267-6 8 (200 0). Defend ant 's first deg re e mur der char ge w as ba sed on a t heo ry o f felony murde r. The rel evan t sta tute provi de s a s f

ol l ows : " A

pers on w ho k i ll s a n i nd i vi dua l wi thou t l aw f ul j us ti f i ca ti on1-08-3499

8

com m i ts f i rs t de gre e m

urder i f , i n p erf orm i ng the ac ts w hi ch ca us e the dea

th: he i s a ttem pti ng or commi tt in g a forcibl

e fel ony other t han second degree murder." 720 I LCS 5/9-1( a)(3) (West 20 04 )
. T he r eq ui sit e f

o r cib le f elo ny int he pr o se cu t io n o f t his ca se wa s a t t emp t ed ar med r o bbe ry, (a ch arge th at w as n ot pu t b ef oreth i s j ur

y as a l es se r i n cl uded of f ense ) w h i ch re qui re s th at a person, whi

le carryi ng on hi s person or is otherwi se arm ed wi th a dangerous weapon, take a subs t ant ial ste p wit h t he inte nt t o t ake pr op er t y from ano t her by the u se o f forc e o r t hre at ening the u se of f orce. 720 ILCS 5/8-4( a), 18-1 , 18-2 (W est 200 4). De f en da n t' s f i rs t ar gu men t i s th at h e c oul d n ot b e h el d acc oun tab l e f or th e v i cti m' s dea th beca use he ag re ed t o a ro bber y and no t an ar med r obbe ry. S pec ifi cally, he claims t hat t her e is no evi dence that he us ed, or agreed t o t he use of , a dangerous weapon and theref ore he did n

ot agree to commi t armed ro bbery . We fi

nd this speci

fi c argument to be lacking i n legal m erit, because Ill in ois l aw i s clear that one can be h el d accountable for a cri

me dif feren t t han the one that was plan ne d. Peo ple v. Red mond , 341 Il l . Ap p. 3d 49 8, 510 ( 2003) . Indeed, th e tri al court
r ec o gn ize d t his in t he ins t ruc t io n s ub mit t ed t o t he jury o n a cc o un t ab ilit y: "A pers on i s l eg al l y res pon si bl e f or th e c ond

uc t of an othe r pe rs on w he n, ei the r b ef ore or dur ing t he co mmi

ssio n of a n offense , a nd wit h t he inte nt t o p ro mot e o r fac ili t at e t he
com m i ss i on of an of f ense , he k n owi n gl y sol i ci ts, ai ds , a b ets , a gr ee s to ai

d, o r a ttem pts to aid the other pe rson i n the pl an ni ng or c omm

i ssi on of an off en se." Thi s i nstruction was taken di

rectly from the Ill in ois Pattern Jury

Instructions, Cri

mi nal , No. 5. 03 (4 t h ed. 200 0) (he re inafte r I PI Criminal 4t h), an inst ru ct ion whe re t he t rial co ur t is given t he cho ice t o g ive the instr uct ion bas ed o n "t he o ffense" o r "a n offense ." The co mmi t t ee no t es o n t he1-08-3499

9

instr uct ion exp lain: "Us e t he br ack et ed w or d 'an' a nd us e t he br ack et ed p ar agr aph w hen t he off ens e i s diff

erent than the pl ann ed an d i ntended of

fe nse , but done i

n f urtheran ce of i t." IPI Crim in al 3d No. 5.03, Comm

ittee Notes at 106, citi

ng People v . Kessl

er , 57 Il l . 2d 493 (1974 ). The i nch oate o ff ense of attempted ro bbe

ry h as two distin

ct elem ents: that the offen

der (1) with the i ntent to comm

it a speci fi c off ense, (2) does any

act whi ch consti

tut es a sub stantial

step to ward the comm

is si on of that offe

nse. 720 ILCS 5/8-4(a) (West 2004). The cri me of attempt requi res a spe ci f i c i nten t to comm

i t the nam ed of f en se. People v . Cruz , 248 Ill . App. 3d 473, 475 (1993 ). In the case sub judice , count XII o f the ch argin g in strumen t alleged that the fi

ve n am ed de fe nd an t s c o mmit t ed t he o ffe ns e o f a t t emp t ar med r o bbe ry: "in tha t t hey, w ith int ent t o c ommit t he o ffense o f armed ro bber y, did a ny act , e nt er ed t he Fa mily Do llar St o r e lo ca t ed at 26 60 E as t 79 t h S t r ee t , Ch ica go , Co o k C o un t y, I llino is whi le armed wi th a dangerous weapon, to wit: a fi rearm, wh

ic h consti tut ed a subs

tantial step toward

the c omm

i ssi on of arm ed rob bery ." Al though Garrett ma

y n ot have env

is ione d that an arme d robbery was contempl

ated, as noted ab o ve , t ha t ar gu men t is s ing ul ar ly una va iling
. Un de rpr ev aili ng pr inc ip les o f le ga l r es po ns ibilit y, Ga rrett wa s acc oun

tab l e f or th e actsof

hi s c oconsp i

rator s. S ec ti on 5 -2 of

the Cri m i na l Code of 1961 pro vides: "A pe rso n is legally acco unt able for t he co nduc t of a not her when:
*** (c) Ei the r b ef ore or dur i ng such com m i ss i on h e s ol i ci ts, a i ds , ab ets , ag

ree s or1-08-3499

10

attempts to ai d such other person i n the pl ann in g or co mm

is si on of the off

ense." 720 ILCS 5/5-2( c) (200 4). Th us , wh ere a def en da nt a gre esor atte

m ptsto ai d a noth er p ers on i

n th e p l an ni ng or com m i ss i on o f an off ense, h is li abi li ty attaches to any res

ulti ng off ense, al bei t o ne diff erent from

the pla nne d and i ntended off

ense. Moreover, a defe

ndan t may be h el d accountable for arm

ed robbery

even wh ere h e as sertsthat h

e was una ware that h i s code f endan t posses sed

a wea pon. Peo ple v. Ba rtl ett , 91 Ill. App. 3d 1 38, 141 (19 80) ; People v . Crutcher , 72 Il l . Ap p. 3d 23 9, 244 ( 1979) ; People v . Peters , 33 Ill . App. 3d 296, 299 (1975). Additi onally , under the long-establis

hed
com m on d es i gn rul e, " where two or m ore p ers ons

en gagei n a com mon c ri m i na l de si gn or agree men t, an y ac ts i n f urth era nc e there of

com m i tted b y one pa rty are consi dered to be the ac ts of all pa rties to t he com

mon de sign an

d are all e qually

responsi ble for the consequen

ces of suc h further act s." Kess le

r , 57 Il l . 2d at 49 6-97. At oral argum

ent, the defen

se al so mai

ntain ed that in the absen ce of proof dem

onstrating a rob b er y wa s a ctual l y atte m pte d i n si de th e F am i l y Dol l ar Store, th e ev i den ce

wa s i n suf f i ci en t to est ablish the char ged offense . H ow ever , in Pe o ple v. T er r ell , our supreme court reco gni zed that
on e of th e m ost trou b l es om e p rob l em s i n th e a re a of i n ch oate of f ense s is " ' wh

en pr ep arati on to commi t an offense ceases an

d perpet ration o f the off

ense [att empt] begins.' " Pe o ple v. T er r ell , 99 Ill . 2d 427, 433 (1984), quot in g Ill . Ann . Stat ., ch. 38, par. 8–4(a), Comm ittee Comm

ents, at 512 (S mith-H ur d 19 72) . I n T er r ell , a n ano nymous c all at 6 :1 5 a. m. aler t ed t he po lice tha t "t wo men, armed wi th guns were hidi

ng behi nd a service stat ion." T er r ell , 9 9 I ll. 2d a t 429 . O n ar rival, t he dispa t ched officer s o bser ved t he de fendant , c ro uche d in t he we eds 20 t o 3 0 feet fro m the s t at ion,1-08-3499

11

j um p up a nd r un w i th a g un, w hi ch he dropped whi l e sc al

i ng a ne arby f ence. T er r ell , 99 Ill . 2d at 430 . R eject ing defend ant 's exp lanat ion t hat he wa s go ing t o t he st at ion t o bu y cigare t t es, t he court f ound th i s ev i den ce s uf f i cien t to support his con

vi cti on f or attem pt arm ed rob bery . T er r ell , 99 Ill . 2d at 430, 436. Fur t her mor e, act ive par t icipat ion has never been a re quir ement for cr imi nal guilt on a t heo ry o f acco unt ability. In t he inst ant cas e, t her e wa s une quivo cal evide nce t hat defend ant 's gr ou p int ende d t o c ommit a ro bber y at t he Family Dollar S t or e. In fur t her ance of t hat intent , t he Stat e's ev ide nce pl aced two mem

bers of the group i

nsi de the store, at le ast one of whom was armed wi th a loaded weapon. Cl

early , the proo fs

suf fi ced to show a substantial

step was taken towa rd th e c om m i ss i on of th e i n ten de d of f ense , ra th er th an mere p repa

ra ti on . H ad th e S tate elect ed t o s ubmit a ver dict for m on t his char ged offense , w e wo uld have no d iff icult y in aff

irming any res ult ing co nvictio n. Defend ant 's next ar gument , ho weve r, has leg al merit . H er e ag ain, t he cha rg ing instr ument is i nstruct iv e. Cou nt III , t he f

elony murder charge, alleges that the named def endants: "Comm itted the off

ense of fi rst degree murder *** i

n that they , without lawf

ul jus t ifica t io n, sho t an d k illed Ma r ce ll [ sic ] Hun t du ri n g th e a ttem pt of a f orc i b l e f el on y , to wi t: arm ed rob bery , i n v i ola tion of Cha pter 720Act 5 Section 9-1 (a)(3)." Pu rsua n t to th i s ch arge , the S tate

wa s req ui re d to prove th

at on e or moreof th e n am ed de f en da n ts shot and kill

ed Marcel Hunt and that the act occurred during the attempt to co mm it an a rmed robbery . Accordin

gly , the jury was i nstructed, pursuant t o Illin ois Pattern Instructions, No. 5.03 (a cco unt ability) and 7. 02 ( murd er ) ( IP I Cr imi nal 4t h No s. 5 .0 3, 7. 02) , o n t he element s o f felony1-08-3499

12

mur de ro n a t he o ry o f a cc o un t ab ilit y: "To sus t ain the char ge o f fi rst deg re e mur der , t he St at e must pr ove t he fo llowing pro positions: Fi rs t: T h at th

e def en da n t or one for w

hose conduct he

is legal ly res ponsible , performed t he ac t s which c aus ed t he de at h of Ma rc el Hunt ; and Se co nd : T ha t wh en t he de fen da nt , o ro ne fo rwh o se co nd uc t he is le ga lly re sp o nsib le, did so, he wasattem

pti ng to com

m i t the of f en se of arm ed rob bery ." (Em

phasi s ad ded.). Thus , the j ury

wasrequi

red to f i nd, inter al

ia , b ey ond a re as ona bl e doubt, th at the def

en da nt " or one f or wh ose con duc t he i s l eg al l y res pon si bl e," perf orm ed the ac ts w hi ch ca us ed the de ath of Marcel Hunt. In addi

tion, the trial

judge in structed t he j urors o n the com mon de sign rule, providi ng: "To sustain the c

harge of f irst degree m

urder, it is

not necessary

for the State t o show that it w as o r may have be en t he o riginal inte nt of t he de fendant or one for who se c ond uct he i s legal l y resp onsi bl e to ki l l the dece ase d, Ma

rcel Hun t. It is sufficient if t he jur y believes fro m the e vidence beyond a r eas ona ble do ubt t hat t he defen dant and one f

or whose conduct he is

le gally responsi ble comb in

ed to do an un

la wful act, su ch as to com

m i t attempt arm

ed rob bery , and that the deceased w as killed by one of the parties committing that unlaw ful act ." (E mphasis ad ded .) IP I Cr imi nal 4t h No . 5 .0 3A. Once m ore, t he j urors were t old that they m ust fi nd be yond a reasonabl

e doubt that t he deceas ed met his fa t e a t t he ha nd s o f o ne o f t he pa r t ies at t emp t ing t o co mmit t he o ffe ns e o f a rmed r o bbe ry. No t wit hst anding t he manda t e o f bot h instr uct ions, t he jur or s co uld no t plaus ibly find the1-08-3499

13

requis ite el

em ent of causation by

any of the al le ged off enders h ad been proved bey

ond a
reason ab l e doubt. Even

vi ew i ng the ev i denc e i n a l i gh t most f av orabl e to the Sta

te, a s w e m

us t of course do, t here i s a tot al absen ce of ev ide nce provi ng or even s

uggestin g who caused Marcel Hunt 's de mise. Alt hou gh t her e is clear ly evidence p lacing t wo members o f the gr ou p ( Timot hy Bur t on a nd De mario Bo lden) inside t he pr emises and put t ing a we apo n in Bolde n's po sses sion, there si m pl y i s n o evi den ce s ugge sti ng th at the g un w as the m urder weapon

or, for that matter, that any weapon was f

ired contem

poraneously

with the e

ntry or presence

of the def

endan t's group withi n the Fa mi ly Doll ar Sto re. No o ne testif

ie d that a gunshot was ever h eard. Indeed, Off

ic er Rogers, who was patro ll

in g the im me dia te vic in ity whi le the attempted robbery was occurring, affir mat ive ly t es t ified t ha t he did no t he ar a g un sho t . T he pr o o f is p r o ble mat ic a nd en t ire ly l acki ng as to the m

i ssi ng l i nk of caus ati on. Fu rth erm ore, al thou gh Of f i cer J ac ks on c oul

d n ot f i nd the mark i ng s h e ori gi na l l y pl ac ed on t he gu n w he n it wa s inv en t o r ied , he insis t ed du r ing t r ial t ha t it wa s t he sa me g un he ha d o r igin ally
re co ver ed. Witnes s t est imony furt her indicat es t hat t her e we re var iou s o t her individuals in the store at the ti me of the atte m pte d of f ense . Si m pl y put, wef i nd pre ci ousl i ttl e i n th e w ay of connecti ng f acts to dis cuss here, which i s preci sel y w hat we fi nd to be problem

atic. It is n

ot that there is confl icting ev ide nce of the murder (wh

ic h a trier of

fact could res olve), but ins tead a
co mplet e lack of e vidence . N o p hysical evidence or t est imony was o ffered t o c onc lusively l ink any of the cri mi nal confede rates with the sh

oot in g death of Mr. Hunt or that o ne of them had ev en fired a gun o n t he da y of t he incident . E vidence co nsist ing o f Officer Ro ger s' t est imony placing Demar io Bo lden and Bur t on a t t he Family Dollar w ith a g un t hat did no t co nclusively fi re t he1-08-3499

14

killi ng bullet , w ith no t hing mor e, is pat ent ly i nsufficient t o p ro ve de fendant acc ou nt able for t he vi cti m's m urder b ey ond a reas onab l e doubt, eve

n i n l i ght of the c onsi derabl e def

eren ce we af f ord to a trie r of f act. The defense ci

tes Fa ga n v . Washi

ng ton , 94 2 F .2d

11 55 (7 th

Ci r. 1 99 1) , a

Se v en th Cir cu it Court of Appeals

case which this court fin

ds persuasive i

n i ts co mprehensiv

e discussi on of Ill in ois'
acc ou nt ability sta t ut e und er a simil ar fact pat t er n. I n Fagan , th e def en da nt waspa rt of a g roupof ga ng membe r s t ha t as se mbled t o at t ac k a r iva l ga ng membe r . E vid en ce at t r ial c o nc lus ive ly sho we d t ha t wh ile s ho o t ing at t he vic t im, d efe nd an t wa s a rmed wit h a
. 22
- ca liber r ifle a nd t ha t his codef en da nt wasarm

ed wi th a sh otgun . The v

i cti m , howeve

r, w aski l l ed by a .3 8-c al i be r pistol that someone had pres sed i nto his back b efore f

iri ng. The pistol was ne

ver f ound and the sh

oot er was never ident ifi

ed. Defend ant was or iginally co nvicte d und er an ac co unt ability the or y but t he convicti on was vacated by the Uni ted S tat es District Court on review of the defen dant's habeas corpuspetition. The Sev enth Ci rcuit af fi rmed the di

strict court 's deci

si on, fi ndi ng that "accountabi

li ty requi res proof that t he def

endan t shared wi

th the person who actuall y c omm itted the crime f

or which the defen

dant is sought be held accountable a comm on design." Fagan , 942 F.2d at 1158 . In a

ppl y i ng th at pri nc i ple to the f

acts of the c ase , the c ourt foun

d tha t "[n] o evi den ce was pre sen

ted tha t [def endan t] sha red a c omm

on de si gn w i th wh oeve r sh ot [Green ],"
and theref ore hi s con vi cti on wa s prope

rl y vacated. Fagan , 94 2 F
. 2d at 11 59
. We no t e t ha t t his
co ur t has since favo ra bly relied up on t he ac co unt ability principles d iscuss ed in Fagan in Peo ple v. Ch irc hir illo , 39 3 I ll. Ap p. 3d 91 6 ( 20 09 ) ( co nvi ct io n o f u nla wf ul po ss es sio n o f awe ap o n by a fel on through accountabi li

ty was rev

ersed where ev

ide nce di d not establish that codefen dant was1-08-3499

15

i n f act a c onv

i cted f elon). Here , de f en da n t' s c oh ortswereun

dispute dl y i n si de th e F am i l y Dol l ar an d th ey i n ten de d to
ro b t he st or e. In Fagan , def endan t was u ndi sputed l y at the s cen

e of the m urder. Here, t he o nly ph y si cal ev i denc e of the m urder c ons i ste d of

the bu l l et w hi ch ki l l ed Mr . Hu nt, wh i ch di d n ot matc h t he r eco ver ed g un. In Fagan , th e on l y ph y si cal ev i denc e c ons i ste d of

a b ul l et w hi ch di d n ot matc h eithe r d efenda nt 's gu n. I n bot h cas es, t her e wa s no ot her evidenc e su gge st ing t hat t he victim died as a re sult of t he pr edica t e o ffense and t hus t her e wa s no evidenc e t hat defend ant sh are d a com mon d es i gn wi th w hoe ve r s hot th e v i cti m , leadi ng to a f atal l ac k of proof of
ca us ati on . Th e ev i den ce

at tr i al h ere on l y sh ows th at d ef en da n t sh ared a c om mon de si gn wi th t ho se t ha t co mmit t ed t he at t emp t ed ar med r o bbe ry, f o rwh ich he co uld ha ve be en he ld
acc ou nt able, but not t he mur der . B ase d o n t his evidenc e, we be lieve the t rial co ur t sho uld have granted de fen

dant's motion for directed verdict at the close of the St ate's case and taken t he case f rom th e j ury . People v . Kel

le y , 338 Ill . App. 3d 273, 276-77 (2003), quo ting 725 ILC S 5/115- 4(k) (W est 200 0). Al thou gh a trier of fact is af forded great deference, a convi ction for a crime m ust nevertheless

be a conviction bey

ond a reaso nabl

e doubt and a fai

lure to meet t hi s burden entitles a de f en da n t to a f i n di n g of n ot gu i l ty . Th i s, ob v i ous l

y , i s a n an al y sis of th e S tate ' s f

ai l ur e to m eet i ts bur den o f pro of, not of d efenda nt 's innoc ence . O ur sup re me co ur t 's discu ssio n in Pe opl e v . Sm i th , 18 5 I l l . 2d 53 2, 5 45 -4 6 ( 19 99 ), w

h i ch we quote a t l en gth , e x pl ai n s wi th gr ea t i n si gh t an d c l ari ty t he significance of t his dist inctio n: "A n ot guil ty ve rdict expres ses n

o vie w as to a defenda

nt's i nnocen ce. Rather, it i

ndicates1-08-3499

16

sim ply that t he prosecut ion has f ail ed to meet its burden of proo f. Wh il e there are t hose wh o may c r it iciz e c o ur t s fo rt ur ning cr iminals lo o se , co ur t s ha ve a d ut y t o en su r e t ha t all citize ns re ceive t hos e r ight s which a re app licable equ ally to ever y citizen w ho may find hi ms el f ch arged with a

crim e, whatever the cri

me and wh atever the ci

rcumstances. Wh

en t he St at e ca nnot meet its bu rd en o f pro of, t he de fendant must go free . T his case happ ens to be a m urder case carry

in g a sentenc e of death agai nst a def endan t where the State has failed t o mee t its bu rd en. It is no he lp t o s pec ulat e t hat t he de fendant may have killed t he vi cti m . No ci tiz en would be saf e f rom p rosecu tion und er su ch a stan dard." Thi s lofty l

anguage is surel

y c old comf

ort for Mr. Hunt's f

am il y, b ut t hi s court is under an obligat ion t o e nsur e t hat t he St at e meet s its bur den in eve ry cas e and esp ecially i n cas es in which a lif e is los t . Any co nclusio n as t o t he ident ity o f the per so n who killed Mr. Hunt , u nder t he evidenc e t hat t he St at e cho se t o p ut befo re t his tr ial cou rt and jur y, wo uld nec essa rily be the product of

n othi n g m oreth an ra n k s pe cul ati on . A n d th i s is n o f ri v ol ous tech n i ca l i ty ; i t re pr es en ts a fund ament al failure in sus t aining t he r equ ired bur den o f pro of o n t he mos t cr itical issu e in the pr o se cu t io n o f t his d efe nd an t fo rmur de ran d it r eq uir es us t o fr ee him d es pit e t he ev ide nc e o f his i nv olv em en t in the u nde rl y i ng c ri me of robb ery, f

or whi ch he wasnot prose cuted. W

e the ref ore conclude that t he evi

dence presented at trial f

ell short of what is required i n an accountabil

ity cas e f or f el ony m urder, cre ati

ng reason ab l e doubt asto de f

en da nt' s g ui l t an d w e acc ordi

ngl y rev ers e on this is sue. Bec aus e we re ver se o n t he su ffi ciency o f the evidenc e, we d ecline t o a ddr ess d efenda nt 's remai ni ng contenti ons regardin

g hi s exces si

ve sen tence and the m

ot ion to suppress hi

s vi deotaped1-08-3499

17

sta tem en t. For the foregoing reas ons, the judgm ent of the ci

rcuit court o f Cook County is reversed. Reversed. TOOM IN, P.J., a

nd H OW SE, J., con

cur.