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. Manning

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Second District

March 2, 2017

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ARTHUR MANNING, Defendant-Appellant.

         Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County. No. 08-CF-2729, Honorable Susan Clancy Boles, Judge, Presiding.

          BURKE JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices McLaren and Jorgensen concurred in the judgment and opinion.

          OPINION

          BURKE JUSTICE.

         ¶ 1 Following a second jury trial, defendant, Arthur Manning, was found guilty of first-degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2008)) and sentenced to 25 years in prison. He timely appealed and now argues that "[t]he trial court reversibly erred where it: (a) failed to give a direct answer when the jury asked if non-unanimity regarding the mitigating factor meant that the charge would 'revert' from second degree murder to first degree murder; and (b) refused to poll the jury specifically to determine if any juror believed that a mitigating factor existed." For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

         ¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

         ¶ 3 In 2008, defendant was indicted on three counts of first-degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) (West 2008)), based on the stabbing death of Naromi Mannery. Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2008)) and sentenced to 29 years in prison. Defendant appealed. We reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. People v. Manning, No. 2-09-0752 (2011) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

         ¶ 4 The evidence at defendant's second jury trial generally established the following. Defendant worked for Windy City Amusements (Windy City) and lived with other Windy City employees in a house owned by Windy City. Windy City had a no-guest policy; only Windy City employees were allowed on the premises. On the evening of the incident, Mannery, who did not live at the house, refused to leave the premises. Defendant, along with three other residents-Darren Barnett, Guy Manning (defendant's brother), and Willie Wimberly- approached Mannery. One of the residents asked Mannery to leave. A fight ensued, during which Mannery suffered a fatal stab wound to his chest. An autopsy revealed a blunt laceration to his forehead and three injuries that appeared to be caused by a single-edged serrated knife: one to his right bicep, one to his back, and one to the middle of his chest.

         ¶ 5 Barnett testified that Wimberly threw the first punch and struck Mannery. Mannery then charged Guy, who sidestepped Mannery and then hit Mannery on the back with a folded lawn chair. Mannery and defendant then charged each other simultaneously. Philip David Lehrfeld, a resident of the Windy City house, testified that Wimberly threw a punch at Mannery and that defendant and Guy also started fighting with Mannery. Lehrfeld stated that the fight was over quickly. Richard Rusin, a resident of the Windy City house, testified that the fight lasted no more than two minutes. He saw Guy hit Mannery with the chair, and he saw defendant punch Mannery. He did not see Mannery do anything during the altercation.

         ¶ 6 Defendant was interviewed and, although he initially denied fighting with Mannery, he admitted, after being told that others had implicated him, that he fought with Mannery and stabbed him with a small pocket knife that he had obtained from Guy. Defendant stated that Mannery refused to leave the premises, called defendant a "bitch ass, " and punched defendant in the face. Defendant recalled stabbing Mannery only in the arm and in the back. Defendant showed the police where they could find the knife in the Windy City house.

         ¶ 7 At defendant's request, the trial court instructed the jury on self-defense. The trial court also granted defendant's request to instruct the jury on second-degree murder, based on both statutory mitigating factors: an unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense; and provocation, with mutual combat being the requisite provocation. See 720 ILCS 5/9-2(a) (West 2008). Thus, the jury received instructions that are given when both first-degree murder and second-degree murder are at issue, namely Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, Nos. 7.06B and 26.01A (4th ed. 2000) (hereinafter, IPI Criminal 4th). In keeping with the second-degree murder statute, IPI Criminal 4th No. 7.06B listed the elements of first-degree murder and indicated that the State had to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. The same instruction told the jury: (1) if it found that the State had failed to prove each first-degree murder element beyond a reasonable doubt, it should stop deliberating and return a verdict of not guilty; (2) if it found that the State had proven each of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt, it should then decide whether defendant had proven that a mitigating factor existed; (3) if it found that defendant had met that burden, it should find him guilty of second-degree murder; but (4) if it found that defendant had failed to meet that burden, it should find him guilty of first-degree murder. IPI Criminal 4th No. 26.01A instructed the jury that it would receive three verdict forms ((1) not guilty, (2) guilty of first-degree murder, and (3) guilty of second-degree murder), that its verdict must be unanimous, and that it should sign only one verdict form.

         ¶ 8 During the course of deliberations, the following occurred:

"THE COURT: *** We received a question from the jury: For approving mitigating factors to reduce charge to second degree murder, if vote on mitigating factor is not unanimous, does it revert to first degree murder?
Okay. Proposed responses?
[THE STATE]: Yes.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: My response would be no, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. I will listen to respective-
[THE STATE]: The answer is yes and it's not no. I mean if-if they're unanimous, 12 to nothing for first degree murder, which either under a hypothetical they are or they are-and they're contemplating a second degree instruction, that has-or a charge-that has to be ...

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.