Background
Adam Lujano was charged after Cedric Darden and Dominique Cole testified that, following a confrontation at a Shell station, Lujano pursued their vehicle and fired at it. Both identified Lujano, and police recovered a shell casing along the route. Cole suffered an arm injury after the vehicle crashed and caught fire.
The jury convicted Lujano of three counts of attempted first-degree murder, but acquitted him of aggravated discharge of a firearm and answered sentencing-enhancement interrogatories negatively on whether he was armed with or personally discharged a firearm. The trial court imposed two concurrent 15-year terms after merging one attempted-murder count.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. The evidence, viewed favorably to the State, supported the attempted-murder verdicts: the victims gave consistent accounts that Lujano threatened them, chased them, and fired multiple shots at their fleeing vehicle. The jury could infer intent to kill from that conduct. Its inconsistent answers to the firearm-enhancement interrogatories did not invalidate the general guilty verdicts under Illinois law.
The court also held that the trial judge acted within its discretion by directing the jury back to the existing attempted-murder instructions when it asked whether the charge depended on a gun being fired. Firearm use was not an element of attempted murder, and the instructions correctly stated the offense. Finally, the court upheld admission of the limited gang-related testimony concerning “All well,” finding it relevant to motive and the narrative of an otherwise inexplicable attack.
Key Takeaways
- An inconsistent criminal special-interrogatory finding on a firearm enhancement does not alone overturn a guilty verdict.
- Firing repeatedly at fleeing victims can support an inference of specific intent to kill.
- A court may refer jurors to clear, complete instructions rather than answer an ambiguous factual question directly.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that firearm-enhancement findings are distinct from guilt on the underlying attempted-murder offense. Justice Mikva specially concurred, agreeing with affirmance but urging review of the pattern instructions because their interaction with firearm interrogatories can confuse juries where shooting is the State’s only factual theory of the substantial step.