Background
Brian K. Burnett was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of aggravated discharge of a firearm and one count of aggravated battery with a firearm. The State proceeded on an accountability theory arising from a planned cash-for-cannabis transaction that turned into a shootout in a Bloomington apartment-complex parking lot. The trial court sentenced Burnett to 18 years in prison.
At the jury-instruction conference, Burnett requested a non-pattern instruction stating that mere presence, consent, or knowledge of a crime does not establish accountability without affirmative assistance, abetting, or encouragement. The court declined it and instead gave the standard Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction on accountability. Burnett argued on appeal that the refusal denied him a fair trial or, alternatively, that counsel was ineffective for failing to seek the pattern instruction’s optional “mere presence” paragraph.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District affirmed. It held that the trial court acted within its discretion in refusing Burnett’s non-pattern instruction. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 451(a) requires use of an applicable pattern instruction unless it inaccurately states the law, and the standard accountability instruction was applicable and undisputedly accurate. The proposed instruction also focused unduly on Burnett’s trial strategy.
The court further held that Burnett could not show prejudice under Strickland from counsel’s failure to request the optional pattern-instruction language on mere presence. The standard instruction required proof that Burnett knowingly solicited, aided, abetted, agreed to aid, or attempted to aid the offense, and defined conduct as a criminal act in furtherance of the plan. In addition, both parties told the jury during closing argument that mere presence at the scene alone did not establish guilt.
Key Takeaways
- A court may refuse a non-pattern instruction where an applicable Illinois pattern instruction covers the subject.
- The standard accountability instruction sufficiently conveys that mere presence alone does not establish accountability, even without the optional “mere presence” paragraph.
- Failure to request that optional paragraph did not establish ineffective assistance because Burnett showed no resulting prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the primacy of Illinois pattern jury instructions in criminal cases and limits efforts to supplement an otherwise accurate accountability instruction with a defense-focused non-pattern formulation.
It also illustrates that an omitted instruction will not support an ineffective-assistance claim absent a reasonable probability of a different result, particularly when the core point was conveyed by the instructions and closing arguments.