accomplice witness instruction in Illinois

2000“Thus, an accomplice-witness instruction should be given to a jury if the totality of the evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence establish probable cause to believe not merely that the person was present and failed to disapprove of the crime, but that he participated in the planning or commission of the crime; if probable cause is established the instruction should be given despite the witness’ protestations that he did not so participate.” People v. Henderson, 142 Ill. 2d 258, 315 (1990).

2000"Thus, an accomplice-witness instruction should be given to a jury if the totality of the evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence establish probable cause to believe not merely that the person was present and failed to disapprove of the crime, but that he participated in the planning or commission of the crime; if probable cause is established the instruction *115 should be given despite the witness' protestations that he did not so participate." People v. Henderson, 142 Ill.2d 258, 315 , 154 Ill.Dec. 785 , 568 N.E.2d 1234 (1990).

2026The court cautioned the jury to consider each witness’s “interests, bias or prejudice.” See People v. McCallister, 193 Ill. 2d 63, 97 (2000) (“[T]he fact that the jury was told to consider, in general, the bias, interest or prejudice of the witnesses may be considered as one factor, among others, which establishes that [the] defendant was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to tender the accomplice witness instruction.” (Emphasis in original.)).

2023While this instruction alone does not cure the failure to request the - 16 - 2023 IL App (2d) 220240-U accomplice-witness instruction (Hunt, 2016 IL App (2d) 140786, ¶ 60 ), “the fact that the jury was told to consider, in general, the bias, interest or prejudice of the witnesses may be considered as one factor, among others, which establishes that [the] defendant was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to tender the accomplice witness instruction.” (Emphasis in original.) People v. McCallister, 193 Ill. 2d 63, 97 (2000).

2021People v. Kirchner, 194 Ill. 2d 502, 541 (2000). ¶ 81 Here the State did not affirmatively claim that Curran participated in the planning or commission of the crime, and the majority has found there was no need to instruct the jury on IPI Criminal No. 3.17.

2020“The test for determining whether a witness is an accomplice for purposes of the accomplice witness instruction is whether there is probable cause to believe that the witness was guilty of the offense at issue as a principal or as an accessory under a theory of accountability.” People v. Kirchner, 194 Ill. 2d 502, 541 (2000).

2022Accord People v. Harris, 182 Ill. 2d 114, 144 (1998) (stating that “[t]he appropriate test in determining the need for an accomplice instruction is whether there is probable cause to believe that the witness was guilty of the offense in question, either as a principal or, under a theory of accountability, as an accessory”); People v. Davis, 353 Ill.

2001People v. Kirchner, 194 Ill. 2d 502, 541 (2000); People v. Harris, 182 Ill. 2d 114, 144-45 (1998).

2021It should be carefully examined in light of the other evidence in the case.” ¶ 141 The test for determining if a witness constitutes an accomplice, thus making the giving of the accomplice witness instruction appropriate, is “ ‘whether there is probable cause to believe that [the witness] was guilty either as a principal, or on the theory of accountability.’ ” People v. Cobb, 97 Ill. 2d 465, 476 , 455 N.E.2d 31, 35 (1983) (quoting People v. Robinson, 59 Ill. 2d 184, 191 , 319 N.E.2d 772, 776 (1974)).

2021It should be carefully examined in light of the other evidence in the case.” ¶ 141 The test for determining if a witness constitutes an accomplice, thus making the giving of the accomplice witness instruction appropriate, is “ ‘whether there is probable cause to believe that [the witness] was guilty either as a principal, or on the theory of accountability.’ ” People v. Cobb, 97 Ill. 2d 465, 476 , 455 N.E.2d 31, 35 (1983) (quoting People v. Robinson, 59 Ill. 2d 184, 191 , 319 N.E.2d 772, 776 (1974)).

1993The accomplice witness instruction should be given “[i]f there is probable cause to believe [the witness] was guilty as a principal or as an accessory on the theory of accountability.” (People v. Henderson (1990), 142 Ill. 2d 258, 314 , 568 N.E.2d 1234, 1261 .) “[T]he fact that the witness denies complicity in the crime does not eliminate the need to give the instruction if the totality of the circumstances shown by the record are sufficient to establish probable cause that the witness was accountable.” (People v. Carreon (1987), 162 Ill.

1993The accomplice-witness instruction, IPI Criminal 2d No. 3.17, should be given where “there is probable cause to believe that [the witness] was guilty either as a principal, or on a theory of accountability.” (People v. Robinson (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 184, 191 , 319 N.E.2d 772, 776 ; see also People v. Cobb (1983), 97 Ill. 2d 465, 476 , 455 N.E.2d 31, 35 ; People v. Carreon (1987), 162 Ill.

2023Thus, “an accomplice-witness instruction should be given to a jury if all the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom establish probable cause to believe not merely that the witness was present and failed to disapprove of the crime, but that the witness participated in the planning or commission of the crime.” People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 116 (2001). ¶ 83 Defendant argues that Wallace could have been charged with the offense of which he was convicted.

2018“The test for determining whether a witness is an accomplice for purposes of the accomplice-witness instruction is whether there is probable cause to believe that the witness was guilty of the offense at issue as a principal, or as an accessory under an accountability theory.” People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 116 (2001).

2017As stated, the purpose of the accomplice-witness instruction is to warn the jury that the witness might have a strong motivation to provide false testimony for the State in return for some form of lenient treatment (Davis, 353 Ill.

2016Where the accomplice testifies, “strategic reasons for not requesting [the accomplice-witness instruction] typically have eluded the courts.” People v. Davis, 353 Ill.

2023IPI Criminal No. 3.17 states: “When a - 40 - No. 1-22-0322 witness says he was involved in the commission of a crime with the defendant, the testimony of that witness is subject to suspicion and should be considered by you with caution.” “The test for determining whether a witness is an accomplice for the purposes of the accomplice witness instruction is whether the witness could have been indicted for the offense in question either as a principal or under a theory of accountability.” People v. Lewis, 240 Ill.

2004See McCallister, 193 Ill. 2d at 96-97 ; see also People v. Lewis, 240 Ill.

2021It should be carefully examined in light of the other evidence in the case.” ¶ 141 The test for determining if a witness constitutes an accomplice, thus making the giving of the accomplice witness instruction appropriate, is “ ‘whether there is probable cause to believe that [the witness] was guilty either as a principal, or on the theory of accountability.’ ” People v. Cobb, 97 Ill. 2d 465, 476 , 455 N.E.2d 31, 35 (1983) (quoting People v. Robinson, 59 Ill. 2d 184, 191 , 319 N.E.2d 772, 776 (1974)).

2021It should be carefully examined in light of the other evidence in the case.” ¶ 141 The test for determining if a witness constitutes an accomplice, thus making the giving of the accomplice witness instruction appropriate, is “ ‘whether there is probable cause to believe that [the witness] was guilty either as a principal, or on the theory of accountability.’ ” People v. Cobb, 97 Ill. 2d 465, 476 , 455 N.E.2d 31, 35 (1983) (quoting People v. Robinson, 59 Ill. 2d 184, 191 , 319 N.E.2d 772, 776 (1974)).

2023While this instruction alone does not cure the failure to request the - 16 - 2023 IL App (2d) 220240-U accomplice-witness instruction (Hunt, 2016 IL App (2d) 140786, ¶ 60 ), “the fact that the jury was told to consider, in general, the bias, interest or prejudice of the witnesses may be considered as one factor, among others, which establishes that [the] defendant was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to tender the accomplice witness instruction.” (Emphasis in original.) People v. McCallister, 193 Ill. 2d 63, 97 (2000).

2023See People v. Hunt, 2016 IL App (2d) 140786, ¶ 52 (“The [purpose of the accomplice-witness instruction] is to warn the jury that the witness might have a strong motivation to provide false testimony for the State in exchange for immunity or some other lenient treatment.”). ¶ 46 Here, counsel thoroughly attacked Carpenter’s credibility during cross-examination and in closing argument.

2021Given the relationship between such a witness and the State, the court noted that “there may be a strong motivation to testify falsely for the accomplice who seeks, hopes or expects lenient treatment by the State in return for favorable testimony.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. ¶ 28 The appellate court acknowledged that in Rivera, 166 Ill. 2d at 292 , this court upheld the trial court’s issuance of the accomplice witness instruction even though the witness had been called by the defendant. 2020 IL App (2d) 180151 , ¶ 34.

2020The supreme court affirmed, stating, “[W]e see no reason why the testimony of Meger, the State’s witness, should have been scrutinized more carefully than the testimony of Norman, [the] defendant’s witness.” Id. -11- 2020 IL App (2d) 180151 ¶ 36 However, as defendant points out, there was a unique circumstance present in Rivera, and absent here, that explains why the supreme court sanctioned the use of the accomplice-witness instruction in that case.

2023Thus, “[t]his instruction is properly given if a witness is an accomplice and testified on behalf of the State implicating the defendant.” People v. Buffington, 51 Ill.

1987App. 3d 702, 705 , 363 N.E.2d 137 .) The test of whether the accomplice witness instruction should be given is “whether there is probable cause to believe that [the witness] was guilty either as a principal, or on the theory of accountability.” (People v. Robinson (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 184, 191 , 319 N.E.2d 772 ; see also People v. Cobb (1983), 97 Ill. 2d 465, 476 , 455 N.E.2d 31 .) Moreover, the fact that the witness denies complicity in the crime does not eliminate the need to give the instruction if the totality of the circumstances shown by the record are sufficient to establish probable caus

2020In People v. Jordan, 247 Ill.

2020In People v. Jordan, 247 Ill.

2020See People v. Fultz, 2012 IL App (2d) 101101, ¶ 74 . ¶ 41 In short, the trial court erred by giving the accomplice-witness instruction where the testimony of the witness in question failed to implicate defendant.

2020See People v. Fultz, 2012 IL App (2d) 101101, ¶ 74 . ¶ 41 In short, the trial court erred by giving the accomplice-witness instruction where the testimony of the witness in question failed to implicate defendant.

2020Generally, an error in instructing the jury is harmless only if “it is demonstrated that the result of the trial would not have been different if the proper instruction had been given.” People v. Johnson, 146 Ill. 2d 109, 137 (1991).

2020Generally, an error in instructing the jury is harmless only if “it is demonstrated that the result of the trial would not have been different if the proper instruction had been given.” People v. Johnson, 146 Ill. 2d 109, 137 (1991).

2017In making this assessment, we considered the totality of the circumstances (see People v. Furdge, 332 Ill.

2016In making this assessment, we considered the totality of the circumstances (see People v. Furdge, 332 Ill.

2001People v. Turner, 92 Ill.

2001People v. Turner, 92 Ill.App.3d 265, 268 , 47 Ill.Dec. 801 , 415 N.E.2d 1114 (1980) (and cases cited therein).

2022App. 3d at 998-99 (the defendant was identified as the perpetrator only by two accomplices, who both testified in exchange for deals with the State); see also People v. Zambrano, 2016 IL App (3d) 140178, ¶ 32 (defense counsel’s failure to submit the accomplice-witness instruction prejudiced the defendant, because the accomplice was testifying under a grant of use immunity and his testimony was the only evidence establishing the defendant’s participation in the crime).

2017Zambrano, 2016 IL App (3d) 140178, ¶ 32 . ¶ 58 Defendant argues that, as in the above-cited cases, here the State’s case relied heavily on the testimony of its accomplice witness, Romero.

2023We determine that defendant has not established either deficient performance or prejudice. ¶ 22 With respect to the accomplice-witness instruction, this court recently addressed this precise issue in People v. Quezada, 2022 IL App (2d) 200195 , app. granted, No. 128805 (Nov. 30, 2022)—a case which defendant’s counsel here neither cited nor distinguished.

2022Here, the jury was acutely aware that Longmire’s testimony should be closely - 21 - 2022 IL App (2d) 200195 scrutinized. 3 Indeed, even in the absence of the accomplice-witness instruction, counsel impressed upon the jury that it should view Longmire’s testimony with heightened suspicion and warned of numerous circumstances that might motivate Longmire to provide false testimony.

2022See also People v. Strickland, 2019 IL App (1st) 161098, ¶ 43 (providing that the accomplice-witness instruction should be given “[i]f, under the totality of the evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, the evidence establishes probable cause to believe that the witness was present at the crime, failed to disapprove of the crime, and that he participated in the planning or commission of the crime”).

2022People v. Strickland, 2019 IL App (1st) 161098, ¶ 43 .

1992(People v. Wilson (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 346 , 362 N.E.2d 291 .) The test for determining whether a witness is an accomplice for the purposes of the accomplice witness instruction is whether the witness could have been indicted for the offense in question either as a principal or under a theory of accountability.

1992(People v. Wilson (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 346 , 362 N.E.2d 291 .) The test for determining whether a witness is an accomplice for the purposes of the accomplice witness instruction is whether the witness could have been indicted for the offense in question either as a principal or under a theory of accountability.