Court Opinion

ID: 9732923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:44:04.356309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:36.267016
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, dissenting: Defendant contends the trial court erroneously barred him from asserting the affirmative defense of necessity. I disagree with the majority’s refusal to address this contention. Further, I agree with defendant that he had the right to present the necessity defense to the jury. Accordingly, I dissent. Initially, I agree with the majority that Illinois Vehicle Code section 11 — 501(a) (625 ILCS 5/11 — 501(a) (West 1994)) does not excuse an intoxicated person from "sleeping it off” in a parked vehicle. The majority correctly interprets section 11 — 501(a), based on the provision’s plain language, supported by the rationale that an intoxicated person who is "sleeping it off” can easily start the vehicle and endanger life and property. 175 Ill. 2d at 401-06. Waiver Although I agree with the majority’s above-mentioned interpretation of the Illinois Vehicle Code, I disagree with the majority’s application of the waiver doctrine to the issue of the necessity defense. The appellate court addressed the issue in its unpublished order. In this court, both sides fully discussed the issue in their briefs and during oral argument. However, the majority concludes that defendant waived the issue because he failed to include it in his petition for leave to appeal to this court. 175 Ill. 2d at 405-06. It is quite settled that the waiver rule is a principle of administrative convenience, an admonition to the parties; it is not a jurisdictional requirement or any limitation upon the jurisdiction of a reviewing court. In re C.R.H., 163 Ill. 2d 263, 274 (1994); Dineen v. City of Chicago, 125 Ill. 2d 248, 265-66 (1988). "Thus, a party’s failure to assert the argument in the petition for leave to appeal does not preclude consideration of the question on review, and this court has previously considered matters that an appellant omitted from its petition for leave to appeal.” Dineen, 125 Ill. 2d at 266. It may seem that a reviewing court is simply vested with unprincipled "discretion,” which the court may or may not exercise as it pleases. However, a reviewing court invokes its authority to override considerations of waiver based on the court’s responsibility for a just result and to maintain a sound and uniform body of precedent. People v. Hudson, 157 Ill. 2d 401, 425 (1993); Hux v. Raben, 38 Ill. 2d 223, 224-25 (1967). In the present case, defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by excluding defendant’s proffered evidence relevant to the defense of necessity, and by refusing to instruct the jury on that defense. It is doubtful that a jury trial can produce "a just result” if incomplete or inaccurate instructions are used. See, e.g., People v. Newbolds, 204 Ill. App. 3d 952, 954-55 (1990). The function of jury instructions is to guide the jury in its deliberations and to help it reach a proper verdict through the application of correct legal principles according to the law and the evidence. People v. Hester, 131 Ill. 2d 91, 98 (1989). Appropriate jury instructions are essential to a defendant’s right to a fair trial. People v. Comer, 78 Ill. App. 3d 914, 916 (1979); accord 75A Am. Jur. 2d Trial § 1079, at 610 (1991); 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1302, at 207 (1989). Also, there is a "sound and uniform body of precedent” providing that a defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence. People v. Bratcher, 63 Ill. 2d 534, 540 (1976); People v. Kalpak, 10 Ill. 2d 411, 424 (1957). I conclude that these rights override considerations of waiver in this case. Necessity Defense Turning to the merits, I agree with defendant that he had the right to present the defense of necessity to the jury. The record shows that prior to trial, the trial court granted the City’s motion in limine to bar defense testimony concerning defendant’s intention or reason for sleeping in his vehicle. In support of his motion to reconsider the ruling, defendant made the following offer of proof. Danielle, defendant’s girlfriend, was living in the apartment of her friend and her friend’s mother. The mother of Danielle’s friend would not allow defendant to stay in their apartment. Defendant had only 25 cents, had no place to go, and had no other choice but to sleep in his vehicle in the apartment complex’s parking lot. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to reconsider. Motions in limine are encouraged in criminal cases to exclude collateral or extraneous matters. However, the motion should be used with caution so as not to deprive a defendant of a legally viable defense. A trial court must be certain that the grant of a motion in limine will not unduly restrict the opposing party’s case. A reviewing court will not reverse a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion in limine absent an abuse of discretion. People v. Berquist, 239 Ill. App. 3d 906, 908 (1993); People v. Downey, 162 Ill. App. 3d 322, 334 (1987). In the present case, the trial court’s grant of the City’s motion in limine deprived defendant of a legally viable defense — the affirmative defense of necessity. A defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence, and has the right to have the jury instructed as to the law applicable to any state of facts which the jury might legitimately find to have been proved from the evidence. Kalpak, 10 Ill. 2d at 424. A defendant is so entitled even if the evidence on which such defense is based is inconsistent with the defendant’s own testimony (People v. Janik, 127 Ill. 2d 390, 398 (1989); Bratcher, 63 Ill. 2d at 540), or of doubtful quality (People v. Lyda, 190 Ill. App. 3d 540, 544-45 (1989)). If the State’s evidence does not raise the issue of the affirmative defense, a defendant, to raise the issue, must present "some evidence” thereon. People v. Unger, 66 Ill. 2d 333, 338 (1977); 720ILCS 5/3 — 2(a) (West 1994). The trial court may not weigh the evidence in deciding whether an issue has been raised entitling a defendant to an instruction. Lyda, 190 Ill. App. 3d at 544; People v. Sweeney, 114 Ill. App. 2d 81, 89 (1969). The evidence supporting the affirmative defense must be sufficient to raise an issue of fact for the jury, creating a reasonable doubt as to defendant’s guilt. People v. Redmond, 59 Ill. 2d 328, 337-38 (1974). In other words, unless the evidence before the trial court is so clear and convincing as to permit the court to find as a matter of law that there is no affirmative defense, the factual issue must be determined by the jury with proper instruction on the applicable law. People v. Larry, 144 Ill. App. 3d 669, 676 (1986); People v. Adcock, 29 Ill. App. 3d 917, 919 (1975). The Criminal Code of 1961 defines necessity as follows: "§ 7 — 13. Necessity. Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity if the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might reasonably result from his own conduct.” 720 ILCS 5/7 — 13 (West 1994). Necessity is an affirmative defense. 720 ILCS 5/7 — 14 (West 1994). "This defense is viewed as involving the choice between two admitted evils where other optional courses of action are unavailable [citations], and the conduct chosen must promote some higher value than the value of literal compliance with the law [citation].” Janik, 127 Ill. 2d at 399. I conclude that the entire evidence, which includes defendant’s offer of proof, entitled defendant to raise the affirmative defense of necessity. The following evidence was undisputed. Defendant became intoxicated at a party at his home. Defendant knew he was intoxicated; he further knew that he should not and would not drive. However, Danielle did not want to spend the night at defendant’s home; rather, she wanted to return to her friend’s apartment. Defendant did not loan Danielle his car because he needed it. For whatever reason, Danielle drove defendant to the apartment in his car. Defendant and Danielle planned for defendant to spend the night with Danielle at her friend’s apartment. However, her friend’s mother would not allow defendant to stay in the apartment. Defendant never drove his car that night and did not intend to do so while intoxicated. For whatever reason, defendant had only 25 cents, had no other place to go, and had no available means to return home. Consequently, defendant slept in his car in the apartment complex’s parking lot. The appellate court held that the trial court did not err in barring defendant from asserting the necessity defense. The appellate court’s analysis of this issue was erroneous. The court concluded that defendant was not without blame in occasioning the situation because: (1) he voluntarily became intoxicated that night, and (2) "[ijnstead of remaining at his house and allowing his girlfriend to take his car home, he went with her in an intoxicated state hoping to spend the night at her apartment.” However, defendant was drinking in his home with no intention of driving that night. Additionally, the appellate court ignored defendant’s testimony that he simply needed his car. The appellate court also declared without explanation that "there were other reasonable alternatives to defendant sleeping in his car with the engine running while he was intoxicated.” However, the appellate court ignored the fact that defendant presented some evidence that he had no reasonable alternative. Of course, the jury could have doubted defendant’s evidence. However, it is clear that defendant presented some evidence to support the defense of necessity. No other options being available, defendant chose the lesser of two evils by sleeping in his car in a parking lot, rather than driving it and endangering persons and property. This evidence was sufficient to justify the raising of the defense and to have the jury consider it with appropriate instructions. See Unger, 66 Ill. 2d at 341; People v. Blake, 168 Ill. App. 3d 581, 586-87 (1988). For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the judgments of the appellate court and the circuit court of Du Page County, and remand the cause for a new trial. Accordingly, I dissent. JUSTICE McMORROW joins in this dissent.