Opinion ID: 2039539
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: reddick violation

Text: Defendant argues that the jury instructions given by the trial court were of the type that were found to be improper in People v. Reddick (1988), 123 Ill.2d 184, 122 Ill.Dec. 1, 526 N.E.2d 141. In Reddick, this court determined that when the then-existing Illinois pattern jury instructions for murder and voluntary manslaughter were read together, the burdens of proof were erroneously stated on the issues of whether the defendant acted under intense passion or an unreasonable belief that his action was justified. ( Reddick, 123 Ill.2d at 193-95, 122 Ill.Dec. 1, 526 N.E.2d 141.) In the instant case, as in Reddick, the voluntary manslaughter instructions indicate that to obtain a voluntary manslaughter conviction the State must prove that when defendant killed Gahan he acted under a mitigating mental condition which justified the killing. The State argued that a mitigating mental condition did not exist. The murder instruction, on the other hand, did not mention the existence of mitigating mental conditions. The jury, by following these instructions, could not have convicted defendant of voluntary manslaughter, because even if a mitigating mental state was proved, it would have been proved by defendant and not the State. While the instructions given in the present case were of the type found to be improper in Reddick, from our examination of the record, we conclude that the error which occurred was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In People v. Shields (1991), 143 Ill.2d 435, 445-46, 159 Ill.Dec. 40, 575 N.E.2d 538, it was determined that Reddick -type errors may be harmless depending on the evidence presented at trial. It was stated in Shields that to determine the effect of the faulty jury instruction the record as a whole must be examined, including the evidence and arguments presented to the jury. ( Shields, 143 Ill.2d at 445-46, 159 Ill.Dec. 40, 575 N.E.2d 538.) Testimony in the case at bar revealed that defendant, in response to being grabbed by the back of the neck and choked by Gahan, beat Gahan with a pair of numchucks until he fell to the ground. Defendant told detectives that Gahan's grabbing and choking of him was totally unprovoked and Gahan did not make a sexual advance upon defendant. However, another witness testified that defendant told her that the fight occurred after defendant resisted a sexual advance made by Gahan. This witness testified that defendant told her that Gahan put his hand on defendant's leg, and as a result a fight ensued. After beating Gahan until he fell to the ground, defendant took Gahan's wallet, money, jewelry and car, and went to a friend's house. Defendant later returned with a can of gasoline, and claiming that he thought Gahan was dead, soaked Gahan with gasoline and set him on fire in an attempt to hide the evidence. Defendant also wiped Gahan's car down in an attempt to remove his fingerprints. Experts for the State testified that in their opinion Gahan was alive at the time of the burning, but there was a possibility that he was already dead as a result of the beating. Reviewing the record as a whole convinces us that the claimed instructional error given to the jury was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt ( People v. Moore (1983), 95 Ill.2d 404, 410, 69 Ill.Dec. 640, 447 N.E.2d 1327), and that the evidence in support of the murder conviction is so clear and convincing that the jury's verdict would not have been different had other instructions been used. See People v. Austin (1989), 133 Ill.2d 118, 124, 139 Ill.Dec. 819, 549 N.E.2d 331.