Background
Chicago police stopped Levar Green’s vehicle after it ran a red light. Green was the vehicle’s sole occupant and registered owner. An officer saw an empty holster on the center console, and officers later recovered a loaded semiautomatic handgun from inside that console after Green consented to a search. Green did not have a valid FOID card.
At his bench trial, Green testified that the gun belonged to his cousin and that he did not know it had been left in the unlocked vehicle. The circuit court found his account not credible, convicted him of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, merged the former count into the latter, and imposed the minimum three-year prison sentence for AUUW.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. Viewing the evidence in the State’s favor, it held that a rational factfinder could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Green knowingly possessed the firearm constructively. Green undisputedly exercised immediate and exclusive control over the vehicle, and the evidence supported an inference that he knew of the weapon: he was its sole owner and occupant, the holster was in plain view near the center console, the firearm was immediately accessible, and his arm rested on the console.
The court declined to reweigh the trial court’s credibility finding against Green’s testimony that his cousin left the gun without his knowledge. It also held that the trial court’s mistaken statement that Green placed his phone “on top of” the holster, rather than in a nearby cupholder, was a minor misstatement that did not affect the basis of the guilty finding.
Key Takeaways
- Control of a vehicle where a firearm is found can support an inference of knowledge and constructive possession.
- A visible holster and a firearm’s immediate accessibility may support that inference even when the gun itself is concealed in a console.
- A minor factual misstatement does not require reversal when it did not materially affect the trial court’s decision.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the circumstantial evidence Illinois courts may rely on to establish knowledge in vehicle-based firearm prosecutions. Ownership, sole occupancy, proximity, and a visible related item such as a holster can collectively sustain an AUUW conviction, particularly where the trial judge rejects the defendant’s alternative explanation.