Title: People v. Dawson
Citation: 326 N.E.2d 755, 60 Ill. 2d 278
Docket Number: 46787
State: Illinois
Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court
Date: March 24, 1975

60 Ill. 2d 278 (1975)
326 N.E.2d 755
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant,
v.
DANNY R. DAWSON, Appellee.
No. 46787.

Supreme Court of Illinois.
Opinion filed March 24, 1975.
William J. Scott, Attorney General, of Springfield (James B. Zagel and Raymond McKoski, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for the People.
Michael J. Costello, of Springfield, for appellee.
Reversed and remanded.
MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER delivered the opinion of the court:
An indictment in the circuit court of Morgan County charged the defendant, Danny R. Dawson, in count I with the murder of Charles McKinney, in count II with the murder of McKinney while committing the forcible felony of armed robbery, and in count III with the armed robbery *279 of McKinney. All three charges arose out of the November 16, 1971, robbery and murder of Charles McKinney, a service station attendant in Jacksonville, Illinois. David L. Hawkins, the defendant's companion, pleaded guilty to the charge of murder and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than 35 nor more than 95 years. The present defendant, Dawson, pleaded not guilty, and after a trial, the jury found him guilty of armed robbery, but not guilty of murder.
The Appellate Court for the Fourth District, Justice Smith dissenting, held that the verdicts were inconsistent and therefore reversed the defendant's conviction on the armed robbery charge. (19 Ill. App.3d 150.) We granted leave to appeal.
It is undisputed that David Hawkins robbed and shot to death Charles McKinney. At the defendant's trial, Hawkins testified that he and the defendant had been drinking together on the evening of November 15. As they drove to Jacksonville from a nearby town, the defendant suggested that he knew a gas station which they could easily rob. They stopped at the gas station and both went in and bought cigarettes. After buying the cigarettes they drove around the block and Hawkins stated that the defendant handed him a handgun belonging to the defendant and said, "Go ahead" and "If the dude gives you any trouble, just shoot him." Dawson, on the other hand, testified that he and Hawkins had never discussed robbing the gas station, that Hawkins had gone back and committed the crime on his own after the defendant's car had broken down several blocks from the service station, and that he was unaware that Hawkins had robbed the station until after they had driven out of town.
The jury was given an Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction (IPI Criminal No. 5.03), which states:
This instruction was followed by a description of the elements of the offense of armed robbery and the requisite proof of that offense. The court then gave IPI Criminal instruction 7.02:
The appellate court majority treated the case as though it involved only a verdict of not guilty of felony murder under the accountability statute, and a verdict of guilty of armed robbery. Considering the case upon this assumption, we do not agree with the reasoning of the majority. Rather we think that the appropriate considerations are those discussed by Judge Friendly in United States v. Carbone (2d Cir.1967), 378 F. 2d 420:
But we think that the assumption upon which the appellate court majority considered the case failed to take into account the problems that confronted the jury. While the indictment contained three counts, only two forms of verdict were given to the jury  one form covering murder and the other armed robbery. The instruction dealing with *282 murder (IPI Criminal 7.02) could have easily confused the jury because it provided that the jury had to find Dawson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the propositions listed in the instruction. Also, under the instructions which were given, the jury was required to find that the defendant, Dawson, had "performed the acts which caused the death of Charles Duane McKinney" or that "when the defendant did so he intended to kill or do great bodily harm to Charles Duane McKinney." The evidence, however, clearly indicated that it was Hawkins, alone, who committed the murder. It is true that the jury was given an accountability instruction (IPI Criminal 5.03); this instruction, however, was never incorporated into a murder instruction. We cannot assume that the jury took this abstract accountability instruction and used it to rewrite the murder instruction.
The "inconsistency" upon which the appellate court reversed the defendant's conviction of armed robbery was therefore nonexistent, and for that reason the judgment of the appellate court is reversed. Because other errors were asserted by the defendant which were not considered by the appellate court, the cause is remanded to that court for further consideration.
Reversed and remanded.