Court Opinion

ID: 9529965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:55:52.986329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:57.971134
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE KARNS, dissenting: I would affirm the conviction. Immediately after the shooting, defendant telephoned his brother requesting him to come to his house. When he arrived, according to the brother’s testimony, the defendant said “« o # that the boy had come to the house and gave him some static about his daughter and he just blew his stack and shot him.” Defendant testified he did not know the deceased. When Darter refused to go to Energy and bring the daughter home, defendant said he pulled back the hammer of the revolver “to frighten the boy to bring my daughter home.” Darter had told defendant that he had taken his daughter to a girl friend’s house. In response to the State’s discovery motion, defendant replied that his only defense would be insanity. In his opening statement he indicated his only defense was that he was insane at the time of the shooting. In fact that was his only defense unless we elevate the isolated remark that “the hammer slipped” to a defense of accidental shooting and, therefore, involuntary manslaughter. Defendant admitted that he had never told anyone prior to trial, including his brother, that the shooting was an accident. Additionally, the physical evidence belies defendant’s assertion that the shooting was an accident. According to the testimony of police officer Vick, the weapon used was a single-action .22-caliber revolver. The hammer must be cocked manually and barring a malfunction, such a weapon could only be fired by squeezing the trigger, not by simply releasing the hammer. In People v. Latimer, 35 Ill. 2d 178, 220 N.E.2d 314 (1966), the defendant testified, contrary to his earlier statements, that he did not intend to fire the fatal shot. The court sustained the refusal to give a tendered involuntary manslaughter instruction, noting that the record as a whole did not support defendant’s theory that the shooting was an accident. I find the facts here strikingly similar. I would further note that according to defendant’s testimony, he was attempting to coerce the deceased at gun point to perform an act he had a right to refuse to perform. In other words, Darter was killed while defendant was committing the offense of intimidation (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 12—6(a)(1)), a forcible felony (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 2 — 8). Defendant would be guilty of felony murder, even if the act of discharging the gun were performed accidentally. People v. Rosochacki, 41 Ill. 2d 483, 244 N.E.2d 136 (1969).