Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Jackson

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, First Division

July 27, 2015

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHARLES JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 07 CR 18183. Honorable James B. Linn, Judge Presiding.

Abishi C. Cunningham, Jr., Public Defender, County of Cook, Chicago, IL, (Harold J. Winston and Marc Stahl, of counsel), for APPELLANT.

Anita Alvarez, State's Attorney, County of Cook, Richard J. Daley Center, Chicago, IL, (Alan J. Spellberg, of counsel), for APPELLEE.

Delort, Presiding Justice and Cunningham, Justice concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

Page 884

HARRIS, JUSTICE

[¶1] After a bench trial, the circuit court found defendant, Charles Jackson, guilty of first degree murder, but mentally ill. In his initial appeal to this court, defendant argued that the trial court abandoned its role as a neutral and impartial arbiter of fact due to its questioning of his expert

Page 885

witness, its interjection of its own personal knowledge, and its disregard of certain evidence. People v. Jackson, 409 Ill.App.3d 631, 632, 949 N.E.2d 215, 350 Ill.Dec. 727 (2011). The majority of this court reversed the judgment of the circuit court and remanded the matter for a new trial holding that " the trial court abandoned its role as a neutral and impartial arbiter of fact by adopting a prosecutorial role when questioning defendant's expert witness and by relying on matters based on private knowledge of the trial court that were outside the record." Id. On remand, defendant filed a motion to bar the State from seeking a finding of guilty of first degree murder and limit it to seeking a finding of guilty, but mentally ill, based on the prohibition against double jeopardy, the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and res judicata. The circuit court denied the motion, and defendant filed this interlocutory appeal.

[¶2] Defendant raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the prohibition against double jeopardy bars the State from seeking a verdict of guilty of first degree murder as opposed to a verdict of guilty, but mentally ill; and (2) whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the State from seeking a verdict of guilty of first degree murder based on the circuit court's finding of guilty, but mentally ill, at defendant's first trial. We hold that retrial of defendant for first degree murder does not offend the prohibition against double jeopardy because the judgment of the circuit court in defendant's initial trial was reversed due to trial errors, not evidentiary insufficiency. We further hold that the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply here due to the absence of different causes of action and a final adjudication on the merits.

[¶3] JURISDICTION

[¶4] On July 9, 2012, the circuit court denied defendant's motion to bar retrial of the charge of first degree murder based on principles of double jeopardy, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The circuit court denied defendant's subsequent motion for reconsideration on November 2, 2012. On November 19, 2012, defendant filed his notice of interlocutory appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(f). Ill. S.Ct. R. 604(f) (eff. Dec. 11, 2012). Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(f) provides that a " defendant may appeal to the Appellate Court the denial of a motion to dismiss a criminal proceeding on grounds of former jeopardy." Id. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(f). Id.

[¶5] BACKGROUND

[¶6] A detailed account of defendant's trial and initial appeal is well stated in this court's 2011 opinion. People v. Jackson, 409 Ill.App.3d 631, 949 N.E.2d 215, 350 Ill.Dec. 727 (2011). Accordingly, we will only discuss below the facts relevant to defendant's present appeal.

[¶7] Defendant stood trial for first degree murder in connection with the July 27, 2010, shooting of his son-in-law, Pierre Champliss. At his bench trial, defendant raised the defense of insanity. Dr. Bruce Frumkin, an expert in forensic psychology, testified on defendant's behalf. Dr. Frumkin testified that defendant was not sane at the time of the shooting. Dr. Sharon Coleman, also an expert in forensic psychology, and Dr. Nishad Nadkarni, an expert in forensic psychiatry, testified on the State's behalf. Both Dr. Coleman and Dr. Nadkarni testified that defendant was sane at the time of the shooting. The circuit court found defendant ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.