Opinion ID: 2534143
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: To Convict Jury Instruction

Text: ¶ 44 Davis argues the bifurcation from the to convict instruction of the assault element, which elevates his base misdemeanor crime to a felony, unconstitutionally relieved the State of proving the element of assault, thereby violating his constitutional rights to due process [3] and to a jury trial. [4] ¶ 45 The State responds by asserting that the jury did find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that appearance of the elevating fact in a special verdict form does not deny a defendant due process, as the practice has been traditionally utilized and approved in other crimes where an elevating fact increases the statutory penalty. ¶ 46 We recently discussed this issue at length in Mills. There we held that where the legislature has established a statutory framework which defines a base crime that may be elevated to a greater crime if a certain fact is present, a trial court may, consistent with the guaranties of due process and trial by jury, bifurcate the elevating fact into a special verdict form. As long as the jury is instructed it must unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt before it may affirmatively answer the special verdict, the constitution is not offended. [5] Because the jury unanimously found all elements necessary to convict Davis, the instructions were sufficient here.