Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEE M. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1998-05-04
Citations: 296 Ill. App. 3d 435
Docket Number: No. 4—97—0079
Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEE M. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports, Third Series
Volume: 296
Pages: 435–446

Head Matter:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEE M. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Fourth District
No. 4—97—0079
Argued January 28, 1998. —
Opinion filed May 4, 1998.
STEIGMANN, J., specially concurring.
Daniel D. Yuhas, Elizabeth D. Caddick, and Jenifer Johnson (argued), all of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.
Patrick W. Kelley, State’s Attorney, of Springfield (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Perry L. Miller (argued), all of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

Opinion:
JUSTICE McCULLOUGH
delivered the opinion of the court:
Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Sangamon County, defendant Dee M. Smith was found guilty of aggravated battery. 720 ILCS 5/12 — 4(b)(8) (West 1994). She was sentenced to 24 months' probation. The issues are whether (1) defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel and due process because the defense trial counsel failed to request and the trial court failed to order a fitness hearing even though defendant was receiving prescribed psychotropic medication at the time of trial and sentencing and (2) the trial court committed an abuse of discretion by answering "no" to the jury's question of whether the jury had "the option of downgrading to a charge of battery," even if it had found the elements of aggravated battery had been proved. Only the facts relevant to the issues will be discussed.
The defendant's presentence investigation report contained information from medical doctors, a clinical psychologist, and defendant concerning the use of Effexor and Xanax, and treatment for symptoms of depression and anxiety. The State does not dispute that defendant may have received multiple prescriptions of Xanax and Effexor prior to, around the time of, and subsequent to her trial and sentencing hearings. Also undisputed is that the fitness hearing was not asked for by defendant's trial counsel or provided to defendant prior to trial or sentencing and that Xanax and Effexor are psychotropic medications.
The State argues that the amended version of section 104 — 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/104 — 21 (West 1996)) applies to this case so that reversal is not automatically required. This court has considered the same argument in People v. Straub, 292 Ill. App. 3d 193, 197-99, 685 N.E.2d 429, 432-33 (1997), and rejected it. We deem Straub controlling and decline to revisit the issue. See also People v. Cortes, 181 Ill. 2d 249, 275 (1998).
This case differs somewhat from Straub in that the amendment to section 104 — 21 effective December 31, 1996 (Pub. Act 89— 689, § 90, eff. December 31, 1996 (1996 Ill.. Laws 3792)), was effective at the time of defendant's sentencing. It was not in effect, however, when she was tried. In addition, the Straub court did not find ineffective assistance of counsel or an abuse of discretion in failing to conduct a fitness hearing because (1) there was no evidence defendant was taking the prescribed medication, (2) two evaluations found defendant fit to stand trial, (3) the trial court was fully aware of defendant's physical and mental problems and medication and took great pains to assure that defendant's medication did not affect his ability to understand the proceedings and to cooperate in his defense, and (4) defendant's counsel understood the obligation to raise fitness as an issue and the trial court could rely on defense counsel's representation that there was no problem. Straub, 292 Ill. App. 3d at 199-200, 685 N.E.2d at 434. The record in the case at bar would not support such findings.
In People v. Kilpatrick, 293 Ill. App. 3d 446, 448-49, 688 N.E.2d 1202, 1204 (1997), the court adopted Straub and rejected the State's cited cases of People v. Perry, 292 Ill. App. 3d 705, 686 N.E.2d 677 (1997), and People v. Gibson, 292 Ill. App. 3d 842, 687 N.E.2d 1076 (1997). As a result, in Kilpatrick, the cause was remanded for a hearing to determine defendant's fitness to stand trial. Kilpatrick, 293 Ill. App. 3d at 450, 688 N.E.2d at 1205. As in Kilpatrick, the trial court should determine defendant's fitness to stand trial.
The next issue is whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion by answering "no" to the jury's question of whether it could downgrade to a charge of battery even if it had found the elements of aggravated battery had been proved.
At trial, prior to jury deliberations, the trial court's instructions to the jury included the following instructions:
"The defendants are charged with the offense of aggravated battery. The defendants have pleaded not guilty. Under the law, a person charged with aggravated battery may be found (1) not guilty; or (2) guilty of aggravated battery; or (3) guilty of battery."
See Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 2.01 (3d ed. 1992) (hereinafter IPI Criminal 3d).
"A person commits the offense of battery when he knowingly without legal justification and by any means causes bodily harm to another person."
See IPI Criminal 3d No. 11.05.
"A person commits the offense of aggravated battery when she knowingly without legal justification and by any means causes bodily harm to another person, and in doing so, she is on or about a public place of amusement."
See IPI Criminal 3d No. 11.15.
"To sustain the charge of aggravated battery the State must prove the following propositions:
First proposition: that the defendant or one for whose conduct he is legally responsible knowingly caused bodily harm to Michelle Ray; and
Second proposition: that the defendant did so while on or about a public place of amusement.
Third proposition: that the defendant was not justified in using the force which she used.
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty."
See IPI Criminal 3d No. 11.16.
During deliberations, the jury sent an inquiry to the trial judge. The trial judge's discussion with the attorneys concerning the inquiry was as follows:
"THE COURT: The note which I am marking as Court's Exhibit 1 states: [']Your Honor, twelve out of twelve agree to meeting the following propositions: one, defendants knowingly caused harm to Miss Ray; two, did the above in a public place of amusement; three, degree of force was not justified. Realizing this indicates aggravated battery, do we have the option of downgrading to a charge of battery? [']
What would you like me to respond, [defendant's attorney]?
[DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY]: Well, I mean I think the answer to the question is yes, under — you know, they can do whatever they decide to do unanimously.
THE COURT: But they have already said they found them guilty of aggravated battery in a public place of amusement.
[DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY]: But also indicated they don't feel that is a just verdict, but that's reading between the lines; and jury nullification is an appropriate—
THE COURT: May I point out that had we instructed as I indicated we should, we might not be having this problem at this point?
[Prosecutor], what do you propose I respond?
[PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, I think that they've got the verdicts back there. If they want to come back with a battery, they can elect to do that; and I don't think we should advise them one way or other which verdict form they should use.
THE COURT: What they just said to me — [prosecutor], let me read it again. Defendants knowingly caused harm to Miss Ray. They did it in a public place of amusement. It was not justified. They realize this constitutes aggravated battery, and they want to know that even though they find proposition 1, 2, and 3, can they find — can they downgrade to battery. That's against my instructions.
[PROSECUTOR]: That's right.
THE COURT: So I am going to indicate no in response to the question.
[DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY]: Then that would be a response over our objection.
THE COURT: Yes, over defendant's objection."
The determination of whether to issue supplemental instructions in response to an inquiry from the jury rests in the discretion of the trial court, and the trial court has a duty to provide supplemental instructions where clarification is requested, the original instructions are incomplete, and the jurors are manifestly confused. People v. Oden, 261 Ill. App. 3d 41, 45-46, 633 N.E.2d 1385, 1389 (1994).
"[T]he general rule is that the trial court has a duty to provide instruction to the jury where it has posed an explicit question or requested clarification on a point of law arising from facts about which there is doubt or confusion. (Reid, 136 Ill. 2d at 39.) This is true even though the jury was properly instructed originally. (See People v. Morris (1980), 81 Ill. App. 3d 288, 290-91.) When a jury makes explicit its difficulties, the court should resolve them with specificity and accuracy (Bollenbach v. United States (1945), 326 U.S. 607, 612-13, 90 L. Ed. 350, 354, 66 S. Ct. 402, 405; People v. Caballero (1984), 102 Ill. 2d 23, 42; see People v. Harmon (1968), 104 Ill. App. 2d 294, 301, relying on 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1376, at 305 (1989)). If the question asked by the jury is unclear, it is the court's duty to seek clarification of it. (See People v. Land (1975), 34 Ill. App. 3d 548, 550-51; Harmon, 104 Ill. App. 2d at 301.) The failure to answer or the giving of a response which provides no answer to the particular question of law posed has been held to be prejudicial error." People v. Childs, 159 Ill. 2d 217, 228-29, 636 N.E.2d 534, 539 (1994).
These principles have recently been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Illinois. Cortes, 181 Ill. 2d at 280.
The trial court in this case did comply with Childs by giving a direct response to the question, and defendant's counsel objected to that response. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court's response negated the jury's power of "nullification" or "lenity."
Although jury nullification is a possibility (see People v. Ganus, 148 Ill. 2d 466, 473, 594 N.E.2d 211, 215 (1992)), the defendant has no right to argue or instruct on jury nullification (People v. Moore, 171 Ill. 2d 74, 109-10, 662 N.E.2d 1215, 1231-32 (1996)). We also agree with the statement in People v. Montanez, 281 Ill. App. 3d 558, 565, 667 N.E.2d 548, 553 (1996), "The power of jury nullification exists, but it is not authorized by the law. A defendant has no right to have the jury defy the law or ignore the undisputed evidence." The question indicated all 12 jurors agreed that all the elements of aggravated battery had been proved. The answer given by the trial court to the jury's inquiry in this case was direct and simply paraphrased an instruction already given to it.
"If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty."
See IPI Criminal 3d No. 11.16. Furthermore, the jurors were provided three verdict forms: (1) not guilty, (2) guilty of aggravated battery, and (3) guilty of battery. They were instructed to select the verdict form which reflected their verdict as to defendant. IPI Criminal 3d No. 26.01. In addition, they were advised that the jury instructions contained the law applicable to this case and that it was their duty to follow all the instructions and not to disregard some. IPI Criminal 3d No. 1.01. In this case, the response given by the trial judge to the jury's inquiry was the correct response in light of the objection raised by defendant. The trial court's response clarified the confusion. That response did not result from an abuse of discretion.
The judgment of the circuit court of Sangamon County is affirmed, and the cause is remanded for a limited fitness hearing to determine defendant's fitness to stand trial. If the trial court determines the defendant's medications compromised her ability to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against her or her ability to assist in her defense, the conviction is to be vacated and defendant given a new trial. If the trial court determines that defendant was fit to stand trial, the trial court is directed to enter a retro spective fitness finding, and defendant's conviction and sentence will stand.
Affirmed and remanded with directions.
GREEN, J., concurs.