Appeal from the Circuit Court of Winnebago County. No. 92-CF-1752. Honorable Robert C. Coplan, Judge, Presiding.
The Honorable Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the court: Geiger and Rathje, JJ., concur.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas
JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the court:
Defendant, Charles Smith, was convicted of robbery (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 18-1(a) (now 720 ILCS 5/18-1(a) (West Supp. 1993))) and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. On appeal, he requests that his conviction be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial because the verdict was not unanimous.
The State adduced the following facts at trial. A man entered a fast-food restaurant by throwing a cement block through the glass door after the dining room was closed. The robber grabbed the female employee and forced her to open the safe. He took bank bags of money and cash from several tills. He then forced the employee to give him the money from the drive-through cash register. Before the robber left the premises, the male employee called the police. The robber fled the scene on foot. The two victims of the robbery identified defendant as the robber following his apprehension that evening and in court at the trial.
In addition, a police officer, who was responding to the call, saw a person who fit the description of the robber running from the area. The officer identified that man as defendant. The officer saw defendant get into the passenger side of a car which was registered to defendant. The officer followed the car and activated the squad car's emergency lights, but the car refused to stop. The officer chased the car to a dead end, where the driver and defendant fled the vehicle. The officer chased the men on foot through a drainage ditch, but was able to catch only the driver. Another officer saw defendant running from the other side of the drainage ditch and chased him into some backyards. When defendant was apprehended, he was not wearing any shoes, and he had a large amount of cash in $1 bills in his pocket. The officer who originally spotted defendant identified him after he was in custody. One of defendant's shoes was found by the car, the other in the drainage ditch. Cash was found in the car and scattered along the trail of the chase. The police also found two bank bags taken from the restaurant hidden in some brush near the drainage ditch.
The jury retired around 4 p.m. and returned with a verdict after 8 p.m. During the polling of the jury, the following colloquy occurred:
"THE COURT: Mrs. Sims, was this and is this still your verdict?
THE JUROR: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: This is not your verdict?
THE COURT: You did not vote guilty?
THE JUROR: I voted guilty, but it's not what I wanted to do."
The court then asked counsel what to do about the situation. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial, while the prosecutor suggested that the jury be sent back to continue to deliberate. The court polled the rest of the jurors, all of whom affirmed the verdict except for Mr. Poyer, who responded, "It's my verdict, but I am not happy with it at all." The court then ...