A jury in Illinois has found former Sangamon County sheriff’s deputy Sean Grayson guilty of second-degree murder for the fatal shooting of 36-year-old Sonya Massey in her Springfield home, concluding a closely watched case that began when Massey called 911 to report a suspected intruder in July 2024. The verdict, delivered in Peoria County on Wednesday 29 October, followed a week-long trial in which prosecutors argued Grayson acted without justification and out of anger, while the defence maintained he reasonably feared that Massey was about to throw scalding water at him. Grayson, 31, had been charged with three counts of first-degree murder; the jury opted for the lesser offence of second-degree murder. He faces a potential sentence of four to 20 years in prison and could legally be considered for probation under Illinois law. Sentencing is scheduled for 29 January 2026.
Jurors were shown body-camera footage recorded by Grayson’s partner, Deputy Dawson Farley, because Grayson did not activate his own camera until after the shooting, a lapse highlighted in court filings and testimony. The video shows deputies entering Massey’s kitchen and an exchange over a pot of hot water on the stove. According to the footage, Massey poured the water into the sink as deputies told her to turn off the burner. She then said, “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus,” words the defence later characterised as part of a threatening act. Moments later, Grayson fired three shots, striking Massey in the face as she briefly rose from behind a counter, according to the recording presented to jurors.
Prosecutors told jurors the footage demonstrated that Massey was non-threatening, apologetic and attempting to comply with commands when Grayson opened fire. In closing arguments, Assistant State’s Attorney Mary Beth Rodgers said, “When you threaten to shoot someone in the face, and you do, that’s first-degree murder,” a line she delivered while holding the kitchen pot in front of the panel, according to local reports cited by national media. The jury was ultimately instructed it could consider the lesser included offence of second-degree murder, and it returned that verdict on Wednesday. Grayson was acquitted on the original first-degree counts.
The incident occurred on 6 July 2024 after Massey called the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office to report a possible prowler outside her residence. Prosecutors said the call brought deputies to a home where the occupant appeared distressed and in need of assistance. At trial, they argued that Grayson violated training and protocol by escalating a manageable encounter over a pot of hot water into a fatal shooting. The defence countered that Massey lifted the pot and that Grayson feared a potentially disabling attack from boiling liquid at close range, saying he did not deploy a Taser because he doubted its effectiveness in that moment.
Farley, whose camera provided the only body-worn video of the shooting, testified during the proceedings that he did not feel threatened by Massey, and later amended an initial statement to clarify that any fear he felt at the scene stemmed more from Grayson’s conduct than from Massey’s actions, according to summaries of the testimony. The prosecution tied that account to its broader contention that Grayson’s use of force was unjustified and driven by anger, not an objectively reasonable belief of imminent harm.
The case drew heightened attention in Illinois and beyond because Massey had sought police help and died inside her kitchen within minutes of the deputies’ arrival. Civil-rights lawyers Ben Crump and Antonio Romanucci, who represent Massey’s family, called the outcome “a measure of justice” while noting their view that the evidence warranted a first-degree murder conviction. “Accountability has begun, and we now hope the court will impose a meaningful sentence that reflects the severity of these crimes and the life that was lost,” the attorneys said after the verdict. Family members expressed anger and grief outside court, with her father stating he believed the jury should have convicted on the higher charge.
Public reaction at the courthouse included an exchange in which members of Grayson’s family apologised to Massey’s relatives following the verdict, according to video posted by a national news outlet. That moment underscored the emotional weight of a case that was propelled by graphic images in court and by a 911 call that began as a plea for help. The jury’s deliberations started on Tuesday and concluded the next day with the second-degree murder finding.
Massey’s killing prompted administrative and policy consequences before the criminal trial. In February, Sangamon County agreed a $10 million settlement with Massey’s family, one of the largest of its kind in Illinois in recent years, and Sheriff Jack Campbell retired months later amid sustained scrutiny of the department’s actions and hiring oversight. State officials separately advanced transparency measures around law-enforcement employment history disclosures, part of a broader response to the circumstances surrounding the case. Those developments formed the backdrop to a trial that examined split-second decision-making by an officer and the recording practices that documented it.
At trial, the defence presented Grayson’s decision as a rapid response to an unconventional but immediate threat, arguing that boiling water can cause severe burns and permanently disable within seconds in close quarters. They told jurors that when Massey uttered the phrase heard on the video and moved with the pot, Grayson believed she was about to attack, and that he acted to prevent grievous bodily harm. Prosecutors countered that neither the video nor Farley’s testimony supported that fear, emphasising Massey’s apologies and her crouched posture behind a counter with what appeared to be an oven mitt in hand. The state suggested that de-escalation and physical positioning could have managed any risk without lethal force.
News organisations have reported that the partner’s camera captured critical seconds that the jury replayed in the courtroom, with some family members leaving as the images were shown. Coverage described a juror appearing to cry while viewing the footage. The judge sent the panel to deliberate shortly after closing arguments, and local media said the panel had been carefully instructed on the legal distinctions between first- and second-degree murder under Illinois law. The second-degree verdict indicates jurors found Grayson intentionally shot Massey but accepted a mitigating factor that reduced culpability from first-degree, a framework that the court outlined before deliberations.
The case has become a touchpoint in discussions about police responses to calls involving distressed residents and the standards for activating body-worn cameras. According to court documents and trial reporting, Grayson’s failure to activate his camera before the shots were fired meant the most consequential perspective was supplied by another officer’s device. That evidence formed the foundation for a prosecution narrative focused on policy compliance and threat assessment, while the defence sought to anchor its case to the subjective perception of danger in a confined space.
Wednesday’s verdict came after national and international outlets tracked the proceedings in Peoria. In a report on the decision, a news agency said the jury’s choice of second-degree murder carries a wide sentencing range and even the possibility of probation, a statutory discretion that has already drawn reaction from supporters of the family who want prison time. Other outlets noted the timeline of events from the 911 call through the kitchen encounter, and highlighted that Farley did not share Grayson’s assessment of an imminent attack. The variety of accounts arrived at the same core sequence derived from the video and testimony.
The courtroom record also captured the language used in the seconds before the gunfire, details that circulated widely as the verdict approached. Reporters summarised the video as showing Massey pour water away, say “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus,” apologise, and then crouch before rising slightly and being shot. The phrase became central to the defence contention that Grayson interpreted her words and movements as prelude to an assault, but the jury—while crediting some element of perceived threat—did not accept that such a perception justified a first-degree conviction on the facts presented.
In the year since the shooting, vigils and protests in Springfield and Chicago placed Massey’s name alongside other high-profile cases in which Black Americans were killed by police after seeking assistance or during welfare checks. Advocates have referenced the case in calls for stronger statewide de-escalation requirements, clearer camera activation rules and enhanced screening in deputy hiring. Reporting during the trial said the incident renewed scrutiny of hiring transparency for law-enforcement officers in Illinois, a policy area that legislators and officials revisited in the months after the shooting.
Massey’s death was particularly resonant in her community because it followed a 911 call she made herself from inside her home. Attorneys for her family emphasised that sequence in public statements, saying the case should be a catalyst for reforms that ensure residents in crisis receive help rather than harm. After the verdict, they said they would continue to press for “a meaningful sentence” and policy changes they argue will reduce the risk of similar incidents. The breadth of reaction in Springfield reflected both grief for a mother and the practical questions the case raised about patrol tactics and officer judgement in domestic settings.
While the second-degree murder conviction provides a measure of legal accountability, the final outcome will hinge on the sentence due in January. Under Illinois law, judges have substantial discretion within the statutory range for second-degree murder, with factors such as a defendant’s history, the circumstances of the offence and the court’s assessment of mitigation guiding the term imposed. Family representatives have said they will ask the court to impose a custodial sentence that reflects the gravity of a killing that occurred during a welfare response. Defence counsel did not immediately comment after the verdict, according to local media.
The verdict also sits alongside the previously announced wrongful-death settlement, which resolved civil claims against the county. That agreement, reached in February, cannot determine the criminal outcome but underscores how public entities may weigh litigation risk in cases involving fatal police shootings. The sheriff’s retirement earlier this year closed another chapter in the department’s leadership, even as broader policy reviews continued. For residents who rallied under Massey’s name, those developments were steps in a longer process that, in their view, required a criminal verdict to address individual accountability.
As the hearing for sentencing approaches, attention is likely to return to the specific images that defined the trial: the narrow kitchen, the steaming pot, the brief words spoken, and the rapid escalation to gunfire. Jurors’ acceptance of a second-degree conviction reflected a conclusion that Grayson intentionally fired but under circumstances that the law recognises can mitigate culpability; yet for Massey’s relatives, that legal nuance cannot reconcile with what they saw on the screen and what they say a deputy should have done differently. The case, rooted in a call for help and a response that turned deadly, will now move into a phase in which the court weighs punishment, while the community measures what the verdict means for trust in the officers summoned to their doors.