Background
Niquita Booker was charged after an October 2021 confrontation in a Chicago alley during which she fatally shot Kailah Bledsoe and fired toward Kailah’s father, Kenneth Bledsoe, who fled. Booker testified that Kenneth had abused and threatened her during their former relationship, that Kailah had previously threatened her, and that she believed Kailah was reaching for a weapon after another person said, “pop her.” Other testimony and dashboard-camera footage showed that Kailah was unarmed and approaching Booker when Booker retrieved a firearm from a vehicle and shot her twice in the face.
A jury found Booker guilty of the attempted first-degree murder of Kenneth and the second-degree murder of Kailah based on imperfect self-defense. The circuit court sentenced her to consecutive prison terms of 26 years for attempted murder, including a 20-year firearm enhancement, and 10 years for second-degree murder. Booker appealed the convictions and sentences.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court reversed the attempted-murder conviction and remanded for a new trial. The pattern instruction given to the jury did not correctly explain the offense’s mens rea: under intervening Illinois Supreme Court authority, a defendant who subjectively believes defensive force is necessary lacks the specific intent required for attempted first-degree murder, even if that belief is unreasonable. Because the instruction omitted an essential element and allowed conviction on a legally improper basis, its use constituted second-prong plain error.
The court declined to find trial counsel ineffective because counsel was not required to anticipate the later change in law. It nevertheless concluded that a genuine factual question remained about Booker’s subjective belief concerning Kenneth, making a properly instructed retrial necessary. The court did not reach Booker’s alternative challenges to the sufficiency of the attempted-murder evidence or the classification of that offense for sentencing.
The court affirmed Booker’s second-degree murder conviction and 10-year sentence. A rational jury could find that her asserted belief in the need to use deadly force against Kailah was objectively unreasonable because Kailah was unarmed, did not draw a weapon or physically attack Booker, and the encounter was captured on video. The sentence fell within the statutory range, and the record showed that the trial court considered Booker’s lack of significant criminal history, rehabilitative efforts, and other mitigating evidence alongside the seriousness of the shooting.
Key Takeaways
- An attempted first-degree murder jury instruction must convey that a subjective belief in the need for self-defense, even if unreasonable, is incompatible with the specific intent required for that offense.
- Omitting that essential mens rea element was reviewable as second-prong plain error despite the absence of a trial objection.
- Booker may be retried for attempted murder, while her second-degree murder conviction and 10-year sentence remain affirmed.
Why It Matters
The order applies the Illinois Supreme Court’s clarified treatment of attempted murder and imperfect self-defense. When evidence raises a defendant’s subjective belief in the need for defensive force, instructions that merely describe the use of force as “without lawful justification” do not adequately state the required intent.
The decision also illustrates the different appellate treatment of the two convictions: the attempted-murder verdict could not stand because the jury was not properly instructed on intent, while the second-degree murder verdict was supported by evidence that Booker genuinely but unreasonably believed deadly force was necessary. The order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by that rule.