{ "id": 5275464, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANDRE WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Williams", "decision_date": "1991-10-09", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201487\u20143721", "first_page": "822", "last_page": "824", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "220 Ill. App. 3d 822" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "391 N.E.2d 366", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "375" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "76 Ill. 2d 289", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2982988 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "309" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/76/0289-01" ] }, { "cite": "575 N.E.2d 538", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "543" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 Ill. 2d 435", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5591446 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "446-47" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/143/0435-01" ] }, { "cite": "526 N.E.2d 141", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "146" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 Ill. 2d 184", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5550970 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "197" }, { "page": "201" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/123/0184-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 382, "char_count": 5611, "ocr_confidence": 0.811, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.6922169990516086e-08, "percentile": 0.293835084593735 }, "sha256": "8403aa501b26535e4b5553d3ae76aa3676c0bdeaf7f7edc305fb4bf60eb77263", "simhash": "1:b30811b8611f9e57", "word_count": 935 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:36.621238+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANDRE WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE RIZZI\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a jury trial, defendant Andre Williams was convicted of murder (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 9\u20141) and sentenced to a term of 36 years\u2019 imprisonment. Defendant alleges that (1) he is entitled to a new trial because the jury instructions given for the charges of murder and voluntary manslaughter did not accurately reflect the elements and burden of proof in those offenses; (2) his conviction should be reversed because the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had no belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; (3) he is entitled to a new trial because the State repeatedly misstated the law as to self-defense and voluntary manslaughter in its arguments; (4) the sentence should be vacated because oral and written victim impact statements were introduced at the sentencing hearing; and (5) the sentence of 36 years\u2019 imprisonment was excessive given the circumstances of the case. We reverse and remand for a new trial.\nRobert \u201cAndy\u201d Leonard and Lawanda \u201cSkeekie\u201d Warren went to the comer of Douglas and Lawndale Avenues in Chicago, Illinois, to sell marijuana \u201claced with PCP\u201d at approximately 4:30 p.m. on November 25, 1986. Warren testified that defendant\u2019s nephew, Freddie \u201cSmiley\u201d Williams, approached her and stated that she could not sell marijuana to all of the potential customers on that corner because he also wanted to sell his marijuana. Warren told \u201cSmiley\u201d that she would sell her marijuana to anyone who wanted to purchase it.\nWarren called over Leonard, who had been standing in an alley nearby talking to some people. Leonard approached \u201cSmiley\u201d and \u201cSmiley\u201d told him that he and Warren should take turns selling marijuana to customers. Leonard told \u201cSmiley\u201d that Warren was going to sell marijuana to anyone who asked for it. As the argument ensued, Leonard took off his jacket, hung it on the fence, and challenged \u201cSmiley\u201d to a fight.\nDefendant came out of a nearby building and told Leonard to \u201cGet off my nephew [\u2018Smiley\u2019].\u201d Leonard said something to defendant, who slapped him in the face \"with an open hand. Leonard fell to the ground. As Leonard was getting up, defendant shot him. Leonard got up and staggered, and defendant shot him two or three more times. Defendant then turned and aimed the gun at Warren. Defendant pulled the trigger, but the gun did not fire. Defendant then walked away. When police arrived at the scene, they found Leonard lying facedown. He was not wearing a jacket, and neither a gun nor drugs were found at the scene. Defendant was arrested three days later in Harvey, Illinois.\nDefendant testified that after he slapped Leonard, Leonard reached behind his hip as he stood up. Thinking that Leonard was reaching for a gun, defendant drew his gun and shot him. Defendant testified that he did not actually see a gun in Leonard\u2019s hand or waistband, only that he thought Leonard was reaching for a gun.\nThe jury was given a self-defense instruction and Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, Nos. 7.02 and 7.06 (2d ed. 1981) (hereinafter IPI Criminal 2d), as to murder and voluntary manslaughter. The jury found defendant guilty of murder.\nDefendant first contends that his conviction for murder should be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial because the jury was improperly instructed as to both murder and voluntary manslaughter. We agree. In People v. Reddick (1988), 123 Ill. 2d 184, 197, 526 N.E.2d 141, 146, the court held that IPI Criminal 2d Nos. 7.02 and 7.06, which set forth the burden of proof and elements of murder and voluntary manslaughter, were improper because they did not place upon the State the burden to disprove the existence of unreasonable belief in justification for use of deadly force in self-defense.\nRecently in People v. Shields (1991), 143 Ill. 2d 435, 446-47, 575 N.E.2d 538, 543, the court held that jury instruction errors such as those found in Reddick do not mandate automatic reversal and may constitute harmless error if it can be shown that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the facts of this case, however, we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that if the jury had been properly instructed as to the State\u2019s burden of proof it would not have concluded that defendant unreasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious harm to himself. The jury instruction errors were therefore not harmless.\nIn addition, we conclude that the State introduced sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had no belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, these remain jury questions, to be submitted to a properly instructed jury. (See Reddick, 123 Ill. 2d at 201, 256 N.E.2d at 148; People v. Taylor (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 289, 309, 391 N.E.2d 366, 375.) Under the circumstances, we do not address the other issues raised by defendant.\nAccordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nCERDA, P.J., and GREIMAN, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE RIZZI" } ], "attorneys": [ "Randolph N. Stone, Public Defender, of Chicago (Linda J. Seeley, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.", "John M. O\u2019Malley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb and Judy L. DeAngelis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANDRE WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1\u201487\u20143721\nOpinion filed October 9, 1991.\nRandolph N. Stone, Public Defender, of Chicago (Linda J. Seeley, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nJohn M. O\u2019Malley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb and Judy L. DeAngelis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0822-01", "first_page_order": 844, "last_page_order": 846 }