Court Opinion

ID: 9532917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:26:13.21492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:52.228105
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RATHJE, also dissenting: The responsibility for securing a criminal conviction no longer belongs to the prosecution; it now belongs to the judiciary. No longer neutral arbiters, trial courts may now serve as independent grand juries, combing the record for chargeable offenses that the State either overlooked or chose not to charge. Were this result compelled by the law, I would have no choice but to concur. Fortunately, the law compels no such thing. To reach its result, the majority treats dicta as controlling authority, lays waste to Barnard, and ignores the strategic realties associated with the prosecution of criminal cases. I therefore dissent. DICTA The question in this case is whether a trial court may instruct the jury sua sponte on a lesser-included offense, where the State does not request and the defendant objects to that instruction. The case upon which the majority primarily relies, People v. Taylor, 36 Ill. 2d 483 (1967), in no way resolves this issue. In Taylor, the defendant was convicted of murder. On appeal, he argued that, because the evidence would have supported a manslaughter conviction, the trial court was required to give that instruction sua sponte even though he did not request it. In rejecting the defendant’s argument, this court explained that, “when the evidence in a murder case would support a verdict of manslaughter, and the defendant does not request a manslaughter instruction, the giving of such an instruction is committed to the discretion of the trial judge.” (Emphasis added.) Taylor, 36 Ill. 2d at 489. Because “the trial court was not required to give a manslaughter instruction and since the defendant did not request one, there [was] no error of which he can complain.” Taylor, 36 Ill. 2d at 491. Consequently, the defendant’s murder conviction was affirmed. Taylor, 36 Ill. 2d at 492. This decision represented “no more than an application of the familiar procedural rule that error cannot be assigned in a reviewing court with respect to a matter upon which the trial court was not called upon to rule.” Taylor, 36 Ill. 2d at 489. The majority does a great deal of block-quoting from Taylor (188 Ill. 2d at 280-85), but the quoted portions of Taylor are, without exception, pure dicta. In Taylor, no instruction was given because the defendant did not request one. Taylor’s holding is that, where a defendant does not request an instruction on an uncharged lesser-included offense, he cannot challenge on appeal the trial court’s failure to give that instruction. Consequently, Taylor’s extended discussion of the trial court’s authority to give or withhold a lesser-included offense instruction, whether at a defendant’s request or over a defendant’s objection, is dicta and therefore not binding in this case. See Greer v. Kadera, 173 Ill. 2d 398, 414 (1996). BARNARD Of course, that the portions of Taylor upon which the majority relies are dicta does not, by itself, subvert the majority’s analysis. It could be that those portions, albeit dicta, also happen to be right. The problem with that proposition, however, is that, 17 years after Taylor, this court addressed the precise issue presented in this case and reached a conclusion contrary to that suggested in Taylor. In People v. Barnard, 104 Ill. 2d 218 (1984), the issue presented was whether defendant’s counsel on direct appeal was ineffective for failing to raise the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury sua sponte on a lesser-included offense over the defendant’s objection. In holding that appellate counsel was not ineffective, this court explained that the proffered argument was without merit: “The trial judge was well aware of defense counsel’s reluctance to have the jury given an instruction on manslaughter. It would therefore not have been proper for the judge to interfere with defense counsel’s strategy and give the self-defense and voluntary-manslaughter instruction sua sponte.” (Emphasis added.) Barnard, 104 Ill. 2d at 232. Thus, unlike Taylor, Barnard addressed the precise question presented in the present appeal: whether, over a defendant’s objection, a trial court may instruct on an uncharged lesser-included offense. Barnard answered this question in the negative, and Barnard therefore should dispose of this case. The majority’s efforts to explain away Barnard are unavailing. The majority’s first strategy is to intimate that, if the portions of Taylor upon which it relies are dicta, then the portion of Barnard upon which I rely must be dicta, too. 188 Ill. 2d at 281. The only problem is that, unlike the aforementioned portions of Taylor, which endeavor to adjudicate an issue not presented, the portion of Barnard upon which I rely is the court’s judgment. The issue in Barnard was whether defendant’s counsel on direct appeal was ineffective for failing to raise the trial court’s failure to instruct. In holding that appellate counsel was not ineffective, this court gave two reasons for why the proffered argument would not have succeeded on direct appeal: (1) because trial counsel’s decision not to tender the instructions was a matter of sound trial strategy, it would have been improper for the trial court to interfere with that strategy; and (2) because trial counsel did not tender the instruction, the issue would likely have been found waived. Barnard, 104 Ill. 2d at 232. Where the dicta comes in, I have no idea. The majority next asserts that “Barnard recognized that a ‘court should exercise restraint in giving instructions on its own motion when the instructions could interfere with defense strategy.’ Sinnott, 226 Ill. App. 3d at 932.” 188 Ill. 2d at 280. Hyperbole aside, this is perhaps the strangest citation I have ever seen. The majority purports to quote from Barnard but then cites an appellate court opinion decided eight years after Barnard that itself does not cite Barnard. I have been out of law school a long time, but surely the Bluebook does not permit this. As if the Sinnott citation were not suspicious enough, the majority then, using the simple phrase “in other words,” recasts Barnard beyond all recognition. Again, Barnard states: “The trial judge was well aware of defense counsel’s reluctance to have the jury given an instruction on manslaughter. It would therefore not have been proper for the judge to interfere with defense counsel’s strategy and give the self-defense and voluntary-manslaughter instruction sua sponte.” (Emphasis added.) Barnard, 104 Ill. 2d at 232. To the majority, this is simply another way of saying: “ ‘where the defense wholly refrained from tendering an instruction on a lesser-included offense, the possibility that such restraint may have been a viable strategy decision militates against [a reviewing court] invoking any exceptions to the waiver doctrine.’ ” 188 Ill. 2d at 280, quoting People v. Lewis, 97 Ill. App. 3d 982, 988 (1981). How a categorical prohibition on the trial court’s authority to instruct the jury on an uncharged lesser-included offense over the defendant’s objection is in any way related to, let alone synonymous with, a reviewing court’s authority to suspend waiver principles is beyond me. Nor does the majority provide any explanation, apparently content to leave it to the reader to discern the relationship between the two doctrines. In “other words,” indeed. Finally, the majority attempts to circumvent Barnard by stating: “Barnard did not overrule Taylor. The court in Barnard merely expressed the view that it is not error for a trial court to refrain from giving an instruction to the jury which might interfere with defense strategy.” 188 Ill. 2d at 281. Let me say that I agree entirely with the majority that Barnard did not overrule Taylor. The reason for this is that the rule set forth in Taylor — that a defendant who does not request a lesser-included offense instruction cannot argue on appeal that that instruction should have been given — is irrelevant to Barnard. As I explained above, the issues in Taylor and Barnard are unrelated. Consequently, the Barnard court would have no reason to mention Taylor, let alone overrule it. That said, when did this court begin “expressing views”? I thought we issued controlling opinions. Barnard did not “merely express [ ] the view that it is not error for a trial court to refrain from giving an instruction to the jury which might interfere with defense strategy.” 188 Ill. 2d at 281. In fact, this language nowhere appears in Barnard. What Barnard did was hold that: “The trial judge was well aware of defense counsel’s reluctance to have the jury given an instruction on manslaughter. It would therefore not have been proper for the judge to interfere with defense counsel’s strategy and give the self-defense and voluntary-manslaughter instruction sua sponte.” (Emphasis added.) Barnard, 104 Ill. 2d at 232. In sum, in Barnard, this court directly addressed the question presented in this appeal and concluded that it is improper for a trial court to instruct the jury on an uncharged lesser-included offense over a defendant’s objection. The majority offers no compelling explanation for abandoning Barnard in favor of an unrelated decision rendered 17 years earlier. TRIAL STRATEGY I have no doubt that Barnard compels an affirmance in this case. But that begs the question: Was Barnard correctly decided? It may be that the majority, without expressly saying so, is simply overruling Barnard in favor of a new and more workable rule. I doubt this, however, as the public policy that informed Barnard remains sound. Barnard explicitly recognized that the decision to tender a lesser-included offense instruction is a matter of trial strategy. Barnard, 104 Ill. 2d at 231-32. Perhaps the best statement of the strategic nature of this decision, however, is that articulated by Chief Justice Freeman in his special concurrence in People v. Brocksmith, 162 Ill. 2d 224 (1994), which deserves to be quoted at length: “The decision to tender a lesser included offense instruction is *** a matter of trial strategy. (People v. Palmer (1989), 188 Ill. App. 3d 414, 428.) It is a calculated risk on the part of defense counsel based on his or her assessment of the evidence and the perceived likelihood the jury will convict the defendant rather than acquit altogether. If the instruction is given to a jury that would have chosen to acquit on the greater offense, then counsel has effectively subjected defendant to the risk of conviction on an uncharged offense when the client might otherwise have avoided any conviction. Alternatively, if defense counsel fails to request the instruction defendant may be found guilty of the greater offense because the jury, in considering closely balanced evidence, believed it should find defendant guilty of a crime under the circumstances. It is these types of strategic calculations that a court will not second-guess. See People v. Barnard (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 218, 232; People v. Chapman (1981), 94 Ill. App. 3d 602, 608.” (Emphasis added.) Brocksmith, 162 Ill. 2d at 232-33 (Freeman, J., concurring).2  Notably, Chapman held that, in light of the strategic nature of the decision to tender a lesser-included offense instruction, “it may be reversible error for the trial court to instruct the jury sua sponte on a lesser-included offense.” Chapman, 94 Ill. App. 3d at 608. In the above passage, Chief Justice Freeman astutely dissects what the majority fails to recognize: how to instruct the jury is a strategic decision that properly belongs to the parties. The facts of the present appeal demonstrate this principle perfectly. The State charged defendant with possession with the intent to deliver, and the evidence was close. The State could have, but chose not to, charge defendant with the lesser-included offense of simple possession. Similarly, defendant could have, but chose not to, instruct the jury on simple possession. Both of these decisions were likely based on strategic calculations designed to minimize the possibility of a compromise verdict. The State likely believed that it had presented a sufficient case and did not want to jeopardize its potential conviction on the greater offense. Defendant, by contrast, likely believed that the State had not proven the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt and did not want to jeopardize his potential acquittal. As Chief Justice Freeman taught, “[i]t is these types of strategic calculations that a court will not second-guess.” Brocksmith, 162 Ill. 2d at 233 (Freeman, J., concurring). CONCLUSION We are not the first court to consider this question. Faced with the same issue, the Supreme Court of Nebraska reached the same conclusion as that reached by today’s majority. See State v. Foster, 230 Neb. 607, 433 N.W.2d 167 (1988). Foster was not unanimous, however, and Justice White wisely chronicled the dangers inherent in the majority’s rule: “Under the majority’s view the burden on the prosecutor to correctly charge the defendant with the proper crimes and to prove those charges has been shifted to the court. In essence, the prosecutor would not be required to charge the defendant with a crime capable of proof, but so long as some evidence of a lesser charge was presented, the court would be allowed to decide whether a lesser-included offense should be submitted to a jury or to consider itself as a factfinder. In my view the court becomes an active participant in the process instead of a disinterested presiding judge. I submit that this active participation offends notions of fairness and due process.”3 Foster, 230 Neb. at 612, 433 N.W.2d at 170 (White, J., dissenting). Upon this I cannot improve. JUSTICE HARRISON joins in this dissent.   Admittedly, the majority in Brocksmith concluded that the decision to tender a lesser-included offense instruction belongs to defendant, rather than defense counsel. Nevertheless, Chief Justice Freeman’s analysis of the strategic considerations that enter into that decision remains sound, irrespective of who actually makes the decision.    Whether the bringing of criminal charges by the judiciary offends separation of powers principles is a question, best left for another day, as the parties in this appeal do not raise that question. See People v. Novak, 163 Ill. 2d 93, 113 (1994) (“It is settled ‘that the State’s Attorney, as a member of the executive branch of government, is vested with exclusive jurisdiction in the initiation and management of a criminal prosecution. [Citations.] That discretion includes the decision whether to prosecute at all, as well as to choose which of several charges shall be brought’ ” (emphasis added)); People ex rel. Daley v. Moran, 94 Ill. 2d 41, 46 (1983) (“A trial judge cannot, consistent with the constitutional principle of separation of powers, assume the role of prosecutor and determine which criminal offense shall be charged”).