## Facts

- Keith M. Breton was jailed in Du Page County awaiting trial on drug and weapons charges.
- A key witness in the drug case, Gary Wehrmeister, agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and testify against Breton.
- A fellow inmate, John Bivins, reported that Breton was looking for a “hit man” to kill Wehrmeister to prevent his testimony.
- Bivins provided authorities with two maps and notes attributed to Breton showing Wehrmeister’s home location and containing threats against Wehrmeister and another person involved in the drug investigation.
- Prosecutors arranged a sting in which Breton, through Bivins, communicated with a supposed “hit man” who was actually an undercover investigator.
- From jail, Breton made multiple recorded calls discussing having Wehrmeister killed, provided details about Wehrmeister’s location and routines, and discussed a $5,000 fee with payment logistics.
- At trial, Breton argued he lacked genuine intent to have anyone killed and claimed he was attempting to expose prosecutorial misconduct.
- A jury convicted Breton of solicitation of murder for hire, and the court sentenced him to 30 years’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether solicitation of murder for hire requires proof of a bilateral agreement with the person solicited, or whether a unilateral “agreement, command, or request” by the defendant suffices when the solicited party is an undercover agent.
2. Whether evidence of Breton’s prior drug dealings with Wehrmeister was improperly admitted as other-crimes evidence.
3. Whether the State improperly impeached a defense witness on a collateral matter.
4. Whether alleged prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel denied Breton a fair trial.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed Breton’s conviction and 30-year sentence.
- The court held the statute does not require a bilateral agreement; an undercover agent’s lack of genuine assent does not defeat the “agreement, command, or request” element.
- The court found sufficient evidence of intent and procurement based on the recorded conversations and Breton’s written materials.
- The court upheld admission of prior drug-dealing evidence as relevant to context and motive and not unfairly prejudicial.
- The court found no reversible error in the challenged impeachment.
- The court rejected claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance, citing forfeiture of some claims and lack of prejudice given strong evidence of guilt.

## Legal Principles

- Solicitation of murder for hire is complete when, with intent that first-degree murder be committed, the defendant seeks to procure another by any “agreement, command, or request” for money or anything of value; actual assent by the solicited person is not required.
- The unilateral nature of solicitation differs from conspiracy in jurisdictions requiring a genuine agreement between two culpable parties.
- Other-crimes evidence may be admissible to show motive, context, or the relationship between participants, subject to a trial court’s balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice.
- Appellate relief for prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance requires preserved error (or plain error) and, for ineffective assistance, a showing of prejudice affecting the outcome.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Breton’s murder-for-hire solicitation conviction, holding that Illinois law does not require a bilateral agreement with the supposed killer and that the recorded solicitation conduct and surrounding evidence supported the verdict and sentence.


People v. Breton, 237 Ill. App. 3d 355, 603 N.E.2d 1290 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 1992)