Court Opinion

ID: 9819461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:25:51.165326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:25:27.110346
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The jury’s acquittal of defendant on home invasion should not bar retrial on armed robbery and residential burglary. Defendant was clearly charged with and the jury told of the charge of home invasion which caused injury to Hill by a strike from a gun. The prosecution argued that “[djuring the course of that scuffle[,] Mr. Hill was struck in the back of the head of [sic] what he believes to be a gun.” Hill testified, “I was struck with an object. *** First[,] in the nose, then in the back of the head. *** I believe it was a gun.” The prosecution argued in closing, “he was hit in the nose. He covered his nose after being struck during of [sic] course of which his hand was hit and then he was hit on the back of the head with what he believed to be a gun.” Based upon this argument and evidence, the trial court correctly found that the jury could have been hung up on the allegation that Hill was hit with a gun. Moreover, as the majority notes, the charge of home invasion, which charged injury to Hill by the strike of a gun, is to be taken into account when deciding whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than those encompassed in the armed robbery and residential burglary charges. Ashe, 397 U.S. at 444, 25 L. Ed. at 475-76, 90 S. Ct. at 1194. Finally, the jury could also question whether defendant was the intruder who actually struck Hill because the intruder wore a ski mask. Further, the jury may not have felt defendant was legally responsible for that first intruder’s injury of Hill because no injury of the occupants was planned prior to entry. Residential burglary and armed robbery, on the other hand, require only unlawful entry with the intent to commit a theft and the taking of property by force while armed. A rational jury could have, therefore, grounded its not guilty verdict on an issue other than whether defendant entered the apartment, and defendant, therefore, should be retried on the residential burglary and armed robbery counts. For these reasons, I would affirm the trial court.