Lyft Sued By Mother Of Driver: Did They Know About Robberies?
A firearm does not have to be found in a defendant’s hands for the State to prove possession, but prosecutors still must establish the required elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quick Take
In People v. Neal, 2023 IL App (1st) 211607-U, the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District affirmed a defendant’s conviction for armed habitual criminal after a loaded firearm was discovered underneath a pillow where he had been lying. The court concluded that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient for a rational jury to find that Neal possessed the firearm. Importantly, the court relied on evidence supporting actual possession, including testimony that Neal had personally handled and displayed the same firearm earlier that morning.
Illinois law imposes significant penalties on people with qualifying prior convictions who are later found to possess a firearm. At the time of People v. Neal, the offense was known as being an armed habitual criminal. Effective January 1, 2025, the Illinois legislature renamed the offense unlawful possession of a firearm by a repeat felony offender under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.7.
In Neal, the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District considered whether the State presented enough evidence to prove that Don Neal possessed a firearm after having two qualifying prior convictions.
Police responded to a report of a man with a firearm at a residence. Officers found Neal in a bedroom with several children. His head was resting on a pillow and his hands were underneath it. After officers took Neal into custody, the pillow moved and revealed an orange hooded sweatshirt. A loaded firearm and keys were found inside the sweatshirt.
The keys were used to unlock and start a vehicle that belonged to Neal. Another witness, Tezsia Thompson, also testified that she had seen Neal display the same firearm earlier that morning.
The jury convicted Neal of armed habitual criminal, and the circuit court sentenced him to eight years in prison. On appeal, Neal argued that the State’s witnesses were unreliable and that the evidence did not establish that the firearm belonged to him.
The First District affirmed the conviction, finding that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient for a rational jury to find that Neal possessed the firearm. The appellate court’s order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is therefore nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by the rule.
Important Correction: Actual Possession
The appellate court did not rely primarily on constructive possession. The court concluded that the evidence supported a finding that Neal actually possessed the firearm because a witness testified that he personally displayed it before police later recovered the same firearm from underneath the pillow where he had been lying.
What Is an Armed Habitual Criminal Charge?
At the time of Neal’s 2020 offense, 720 ILCS 5/24-1.7 defined the offense of being an armed habitual criminal. The statute applied when a person received, sold, possessed, or transferred a firearm after having been convicted a total of two or more times of specified qualifying offenses.
The qualifying convictions can include forcible felonies, certain weapons offenses, vehicular hijacking, home invasion, specified aggravated battery offenses, and certain drug offenses punishable as a Class 3 felony or higher.
Effective January 1, 2025, Public Act 103-822 changed the name of the offense to unlawful possession of a firearm by a repeat felony offender. The underlying statutory provision remains section 24-1.7.
Qualifying Convictions
The defendant must have the required number of qualifying prior convictions under section 24-1.7.
Firearm Conduct
The State must prove that the defendant received, sold, possessed, or transferred a firearm as specified by the statute.
Knowledge
Illinois courts require proof of the defendant’s knowledge of the relevant firearm possession.
The Penalties for the Current Offense
The offense under section 24-1.7 is classified as a Class X felony.
Under 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-25, a Class X felony ordinarily carries a determinate prison sentence of 6 to 30 years. An extended-term Class X sentence can range from 30 to 60 years when the statutory requirements for an extended term are met.
The Class X sentencing statute also provides that probation or conditional discharge is not an authorized disposition for a Class X felony.
Current Sentencing Range
Class: Class X felony
Ordinary imprisonment range: 6 to 30 years
Probation: Not an authorized disposition for a Class X felony
The Incident Leading to Neal’s Arrest
The events in People v. Neal occurred on March 17, 2020, at the Hazel Crest residence of Tezsia Thompson.
Thompson and Neal had been friends for approximately 16 years and shared a child. They also had an on-and-off romantic relationship.
Thompson had hosted a birthday party at her home the evening before. Neal initially left the residence but returned after midnight.
During a conversation, Thompson testified that Neal removed a firearm from the pocket of his black zippered sweater and placed it on the kitchen table. He then put the firearm back in his pocket, drew it again, manipulated the top of the firearm, and placed it on the table a second time.
Thompson testified that she was frightened by the firearm and eventually sent a text message to a person who regularly transported her children, asking that person to call police.
Police Responded to a “Man With a Firearm” Call
Hazel Crest police officer Monegan responded to a call reporting a man with a firearm.
Monegan entered the residence through an unlocked back door and encountered two women at a table. After speaking with them, he proceeded toward a bedroom.
Monegan called out several times at the closed bedroom door and received no response. While waiting for additional officers to arrive, he testified that he heard what sounded like the “racking” of a firearm.
Monegan testified that his prior military-police experience and police training made him familiar with the sound produced when a semiautomatic firearm is manipulated.
A Loaded Firearm Was Found Under the Pillow
After additional officers arrived, Monegan entered the bedroom and found Neal on a bed with a baby. Two other beds in the room contained toddlers.
Neal’s head was resting on a pillow, and his hands were positioned behind his head underneath the pillow.
Officers took Neal into custody. As they did so, the pillow moved and an orange hooded sweatshirt was exposed underneath it.
Monegan picked up the sweatshirt and felt the weight of a firearm and keys inside it. He recovered a loaded black firearm from the sweatshirt.
Monegan then used the keys found with the firearm to unlock and start a vehicle that was determined to belong to Neal.
Firearm
Officers recovered a loaded black firearm from inside the orange sweatshirt.
Location
The sweatshirt containing the firearm was underneath the pillow where Neal’s head and hands had been.
Keys
Keys recovered with the firearm were used to unlock and start a vehicle belonging to Neal.
The Witness Identified the Firearm
Thompson testified that the firearm recovered by police was the same firearm she had seen Neal display in the kitchen earlier that morning.
The defense challenged Thompson’s credibility. During cross-examination, she acknowledged that she had pending charges involving a firearm and disorderly conduct.
The defense also emphasized Thompson’s relationship with Neal and argued that she had a motive to lie. Counsel suggested that Thompson was upset about Neal’s relationship with his wife and that she could have been seeking favorable treatment on her own pending charges.
Thompson denied owning a firearm and denied that jealousy or anger caused her to accuse Neal.
The jury was responsible for evaluating her credibility, resolving the conflicts in her testimony, and determining how much weight to give her account.
Neal’s Two Prior Qualifying Convictions Were Not Disputed
The parties stipulated that Neal had been sentenced for two qualifying offenses, one on May 12, 2003, and another on August 27, 2004.
Because those qualifying convictions were established, the central issue at trial was whether Neal possessed a firearm.
The State’s theory was that Neal had personally possessed the firearm earlier in the evening and that the same firearm was later recovered from underneath the pillow where he had been lying.
The Disputed Element
Neal did not dispute that he had the prior qualifying convictions. His appeal challenged whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the firearm.
Actual Possession Versus Constructive Possession
Illinois law recognizes both actual and constructive possession of a firearm.
Actual Possession
Actual possession can be established when the evidence shows that a defendant exercised some form of control over the firearm, such as having the firearm on his person, attempting to conceal it, or being observed discarding it.
Constructive Possession
Constructive possession can arise when a defendant does not physically hold the firearm but has knowledge of its presence and the ability to exercise control over it.
The distinction matters because the State does not always need evidence that police found a firearm physically in a defendant’s hands. The particular facts determine which theory of possession the prosecution can establish.
What the Court Found in Neal
In Neal, the First District concluded that the evidence supported actual possession. Thompson directly testified that Neal handled and displayed the firearm earlier that morning and later identified the firearm recovered by police as the same firearm.
Why the First District Found the Evidence Sufficient
On appeal, Neal argued that Thompson’s testimony was unreliable and that Officer Monegan’s account contained inconsistencies.
The First District applied the familiar sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard: viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could any rational trier of fact have found the required elements beyond a reasonable doubt?
The court emphasized that it does not retry a defendant on appeal. Determining witness credibility, resolving conflicting testimony, weighing evidence, and drawing reasonable inferences are primarily functions of the jury.
The Appellate Standard
A conviction will be reversed for insufficient evidence only when the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory that a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt remains. Appellate courts do not substitute their judgment for the jury’s simply because the defense identifies competing interpretations of the evidence.
The Witness’s Credibility Was a Jury Question
Neal argued that Thompson had reasons to accuse him falsely.
The defense pointed to her pending firearm-related charges, her history with Neal, the fact that Neal was married to another woman, and the possibility that Thompson was upset about Neal’s wife and the birth of his child.
Thompson also waited several hours before police were contacted, which the defense argued was inconsistent with her claim that she was frightened.
The appellate court nevertheless concluded that the jury was entitled to consider Thompson’s explanations and determine whether her testimony was credible.
The court specifically noted that a single witness’s positive and credible testimony can be sufficient to support a conviction. The existence of contradictions or inconsistencies concerning collateral matters does not automatically render all of a witness’s testimony unbelievable.
The Officer’s Testimony Also Supported the Verdict
Neal argued that Officer Monegan’s testimony was inconsistent with Thompson’s testimony.
Thompson described Neal displaying a firearm from a black sweater, while Monegan recovered the firearm from an orange hooded sweatshirt.
Monegan also acknowledged that his police report did not contain every detail he later described at trial, including the location of the firearm inside the sweatshirt and the fact that keys were recovered with it.
The appellate court determined that these discrepancies concerned collateral matters and did not require the jury to reject the officer’s entire account.
Most importantly, Monegan testified that he recovered a loaded firearm and keys from underneath the pillow where Neal’s head had been resting and that the keys started a vehicle belonging to Neal.
The Keys Added Circumstantial Evidence
The keys were not themselves proof that Neal owned or possessed the firearm. They were, however, another circumstance the jury could consider when evaluating the State’s theory.
Monegan testified that the keys recovered with the firearm were used to unlock and start a vehicle determined to belong to Neal.
The appellate court considered that evidence together with Thompson’s testimony and the location of the firearm underneath the pillow where Neal had been lying.
Evidence Considered as a Whole
The court did not treat the firearm’s location by itself as conclusive evidence of possession.
Instead, the court considered the location, Thompson’s testimony that Neal previously handled the firearm, the identification of the recovered firearm, and the keys found with it as part of the totality of the evidence.
The Defense Argued the Gun Could Have Belonged to Someone Else
Neal argued that the firearm was found in Thompson’s home and bedroom and therefore could have belonged to Thompson or another person.
The defense also noted that Thompson had a pending firearm-related case and therefore had a potential reason to shift responsibility for the gun to Neal.
The appellate court acknowledged those arguments but explained that the jury was entitled to resolve them.
The existence of a competing theory does not automatically make the State’s evidence insufficient. The question on appeal was whether a rational jury could accept the State’s evidence and find the required element of possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Jury Found Neal Guilty of Armed Habitual Criminal
The jury found Neal not guilty of aggravated assault but guilty of armed habitual criminal.
That distinction is relevant because it demonstrates that the jury did not simply accept every accusation made by the State. It found the evidence sufficient for the firearm-possession offense but did not find all of the proof necessary to convict Neal of aggravated assault.
Neal filed a posttrial motion arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove knowing possession of the firearm. The circuit court denied the motion.
The court then sentenced Neal to eight years in prison.
The First District Affirmed the Eight-Year Sentence
On appeal, Neal challenged the sufficiency of the evidence rather than arguing that the eight-year sentence exceeded the statutory range.
The First District affirmed the conviction and sentence.
The court concluded that the jury could reasonably believe Thompson’s testimony that Neal had personally possessed and displayed the firearm and could connect that firearm to the loaded firearm later recovered from underneath the pillow.
The court therefore found that the evidence was not so unreasonable or improbable that reversal was required.
Final Result in People v. Neal
Charge: Armed habitual criminal under the law applicable in 2020
Verdict: Guilty
Sentence: Eight years in prison
Appeal: First District affirmed
What People v. Neal Means for Firearm Possession Cases
People v. Neal demonstrates that the State does not necessarily need to recover a firearm directly from a defendant’s hands to establish possession.
In some cases, direct testimony that a defendant handled or displayed the firearm can establish actual possession. In other cases, the prosecution may rely on constructive possession by proving the defendant knew the firearm was present and exercised sufficient control over the place or area where it was found.
The case also shows why the surrounding circumstances can matter. Here, the firearm was not found merely somewhere inside a large residence. It was recovered from an item underneath the pillow where Neal’s head and hands had been positioned, and keys found with the firearm were used to operate a vehicle belonging to him.
At the same time, the defense was able to identify credibility issues, inconsistencies, and an alternative theory concerning who owned the firearm. The appellate court simply concluded that those matters were for the jury to weigh.
Current Illinois Terminology for the Offense
Because Neal’s offense occurred in March 2020, the court’s opinion refers to the charge as armed habitual criminal.
Effective January 1, 2025, Illinois changed the statutory title. Section 24-1.7 now calls the offense unlawful possession of a firearm by a repeat felony offender. The amendment did not eliminate the requirement that the State prove the required qualifying prior convictions and firearm conduct.
The current statute should therefore be used when discussing Illinois law today, while armed habitual criminal remains the terminology used in older cases such as Neal.
Older Case, Current Law
The name of the offense changed in 2025, but People v. Neal remains an example of how an Illinois appellate court evaluated evidence of firearm possession under the law applicable to the defendant’s 2020 conduct.
The Importance of the Prior Convictions
A prosecution under section 24-1.7 differs from a simple allegation that a person unlawfully possessed a firearm because the State must also establish the defendant’s qualifying criminal history.
In Neal, the parties stipulated to the two qualifying convictions. The defense therefore focused its trial challenge on whether Neal possessed the firearm.
When the qualifying convictions are disputed, they can present a separate evidentiary issue. Illinois courts have recognized that defendants may seek to limit the prejudicial effect of presenting prior convictions to a jury when the convictions are elements of the offense. The precise procedure depends on the case and the defendant’s position concerning stipulation.
Frequently Asked Questions About Illinois Firearm Possession Charges
Does a gun have to be found in someone’s hands to prove possession?
No. Depending on the circumstances, the State may attempt to prove actual possession through testimony or other evidence showing that the defendant exercised control over the firearm, or constructive possession by showing knowledge of the firearm and the ability to control it. In Neal, the appellate court found evidence supporting actual possession because a witness testified that Neal had personally handled and displayed the firearm.
What is the current name of the armed habitual criminal offense in Illinois?
Effective January 1, 2025, the offense was renamed unlawful possession of a firearm by a repeat felony offender under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.7. Older cases, including Neal, use the former term “armed habitual criminal.”
What are the penalties for unlawful possession of a firearm by a repeat felony offender?
Section 24-1.7 classifies the offense as a Class X felony. Under the Class X sentencing statute, the ordinary imprisonment range is 6 to 30 years, with extended-term sentencing potentially applicable when statutory requirements are met.
What makes a prior conviction a qualifying conviction?
Section 24-1.7 identifies categories of prior offenses that may qualify, including certain forcible felonies, weapons offenses, vehicular hijacking, home invasion, specified aggravated battery offenses, and certain drug offenses. The specific criminal history must be reviewed under the statute.
Is People v. Neal binding precedent in Illinois?
No. The decision was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by the rule. It can explain how the First District evaluated the particular evidence in Neal, but it should not be presented as a precedential appellate decision.
Why the Evidence Matters
Firearm possession cases can turn on the details surrounding where a weapon was found, who had access to it, witness testimony, physical evidence, and whether the State can connect the defendant to the firearm beyond a reasonable doubt. When prior qualifying convictions are also involved, the potential consequences can be substantially more serious.
Talk to an Illinois Weapons Crimes Defense Lawyer
A firearm charge can become substantially more serious when the defendant has qualifying prior convictions. The State may rely on direct testimony, physical evidence, and circumstantial evidence to establish possession, and the specific circumstances surrounding where a firearm is found can become important at trial.
Patel Law, PC represents Illinois residents facing weapons charges and other serious criminal offenses. Our attorneys can review the alleged possession, the evidence supporting the charge, and any qualifying prior convictions that the State intends to use.
Contact our Champaign weapons crimes lawyers to discuss your case and the legal options available to you.
Sources
People v. Neal, 2023 IL App (1st) 211607-U — Official Illinois Appellate Court Opinion
720 ILCS 5/24-1.7 — Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Repeat Felony Offender
