{
  "id": 5110671,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEROME SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Scott",
  "decision_date": "1993-02-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 1-90-0763",
  "first_page": "167",
  "last_page": "170",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "243 Ill. App. 3d 167"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "161 N.E.2d 325",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "331"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Ill. 2d 287",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5334608
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "298"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/17/0287-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "592 N.E.2d 960",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "969"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 Ill. 2d 116",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3283229
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "136"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/148/0116-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 339,
    "char_count": 5344,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.762,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3557382322259146e-07,
      "percentile": 0.634477724376981
    },
    "sha256": "c84a9251abbe69e947ea3a19c6d26c770dd734f5c912f326e7e98f2c139d913a",
    "simhash": "1:0eb294686d3dfff5",
    "word_count": 843
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:01.285518+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. JEROME SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE RIZZI\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Jerome Scott, was convicted of one count of delivery of a controlled substance (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 56x/2, par. 1401(d)) in a jury trial and sentenced to five years\u2019 imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the indictment does not apprise him of the offenses charged or bar subsequent prosecution arising from the same conduct; (2) the trial court committed reversible error when it submitted verdict forms to the jury for only one of the three counts charged in the indictment; (3) sebtion 401 of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 56x/2, par. 1100 et seq.) violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States and Illinois Constitutions; (4) certain improper and prejudicial remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument entitle him to a new trial; and (5) the trial court improperly admitted evidence of defendant\u2019s prior convictions. We reverse and remand.\nDefendant was charged by three-count indictment with allegedly delivering hand-rolled cigarettes containing phencyclidine (PCP) to three undercover police officers in three unconnected transactions. At the jury instruction conference, the State tendered Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 26.01 (2d ed. 1981), which provided for the jury to receive six jury forms, one \u201cguilty\u201d and one \u201cnot guilty\u201d verdict form for each of the three counts which defendant was charged. The trial court, however, modified this instruction sua sponte to require only two verdict forms, one \u201cguilty\u201d and one \u201cnot guilty,\u201d be submitted to the jury rather than the six forms requested in the tendered instruction. Defense counsel failed to object. The jury subsequently returned a guilty verdict. This appeal followed.\nDefendant first contends that the indictment does not apprise him of the offenses charged or bar subsequent prosecution arising from the same conduct. We find the indictment here sufficiently apprises defendant of the charges against him so that he can prepare his defense and protects him from the possibility of duplicate prosecution for the same offense, notwithstanding the omission of a recipient of the alleged deliveries of the controlled substance. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 111 \u2014 3; People v. Maxwell (1992), 148 Ill. 2d 116, 136, 592 N.E.2d 960, 969.\nDefendant next contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it submitted verdict forms to the jury for only one of the three counts charged in the indictment. Although defense counsel failed to make a contemporaneous objection at the instruction conference, we hold that defendant has not waived appellate review of this issue because the trial court\u2019s error clearly rises to the level of plain error. (134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a); see also 134 Ill. 2d R. 451(c) (substantial defects involving jury instructions are not waived by failure to make timely objections thereto if the interests of justice require).) After reviewing the record in its entirety, we find that defendant\u2019s constitutional right to a unanimous verdict by a 12-person jury was violated when the trial court provided verdict forms for only one of the three counts charged in the indictment. (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, \u00a713; People v. Lobb (1959), 17 Ill. 2d 287, 298, 161 N.E.2d 325, 331.) Accordingly, defendant\u2019s conviction must be reversed.\nEach count of the indictment separately charged defendant with delivering PCP to a different undercover officer. By submitting verdict forms to the jury for only one count of delivery of a controlled substance, the trial court engendered the possibility of a unanimous guilty verdict only in the sense that all 12 jurors believed that defendant was guilty of one, but possibly not the same, delivery count. It is possible here that only four jurors believed that defendant was guilty of delivering a controlled substance to one of the officers, four other jurors believed that defendant was guilty of delivering a controlled substance to another officer and the remaining four jurors believed that defendant was guilty of delivering a controlled substance to the third officer. This scenario, which is plausible given the facts of this case, permits a unanimous guilty verdict to have been rendered without all 12 jurors agreeing that defendant delivered a controlled substance to a particular recipient as set forth in each count of the indictment. We, therefore, conclude that because defendant was denied the right to a unanimous verdict by a 12-person jury as guaranteed by the Illinois Constitution, defendant\u2019s conviction is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. 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.\nTULLY, P.J., and GREIMAN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE RIZZI"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rita A. Fry, Public Defender, of Chicago (Pamela Pfrang, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Jack O\u2019Malley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb and David Stabrawa, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEROME SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1\u201490\u20140763\nOpinion filed February 10, 1993.\nRita A. Fry, Public Defender, of Chicago (Pamela Pfrang, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nJack O\u2019Malley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb and David Stabrawa, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0167-01",
  "first_page_order": 185,
  "last_page_order": 188
}