Opinion ID: 2630624
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Imperfect Legal Justification

Text: ¶ 14 We next consider the evidence under subsection (3)(a)(ii) which reduces murder to manslaughter where defendant acted under a reasonable belief that the circumstances provided a legal justification or excuse for his conduct, although the conduct was not legally justifiable or excusable under the existing circumstances. Again, under defendant's version of the events, Christopher was the aggressor. He approached Brookes in a threatening manner with a knife. The medical examiner testified that the fatal wounds were inflicted early in the struggle. Arguably, this could have occurred while Brookes perceived Christopher to be a threat. The injuries inflicted thereafter were not life threatening and in some instances were superficial. As earlier stated in this opinion, there is no evidence that Brookes was known to be a violent person or had aggressive tendencies. After the incident, Brookes went to Christopher's mother's room and told her what had happened. The State correctly argues that under a different interpretation of the evidence Christopher was lying down on his back when the fatal stab wounds were inflicted, and therefore Christopher's mother and sister, who were sleeping in other rooms in the trailer, were not awakened by any struggle. These conflicting interpretations of the evidence underline the importance of a correct jury instruction on Brookes' theory of imperfect legal justification manslaughter.