Court Opinion

ID: 9535852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:45:33.411286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:21.918183
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice House, also concurring and dissenting in part: I concur in the special concurrence, and dissent of Mr. Justice Underwood. The argument that the defendant was drinking and had been an alcoholic, hence not responsible, is not impressive. His ability to drive 18 miles to commit a robbery is inconsistent with his defense of intoxication. He clearly knew what he was doing. Further evidence of his condition as to sobriety may be gathered from his elaborate preparation to conceal his identity from his victim. He pulled the head of a sweatshirt over his forehead and put on wrap-around sun glasses to cover certain identifying scars. His treatment for alcoholism had taken place more than 4 years before and has little bearing on his present condition. We can, and will, reduce excessive punishment in a proper case, such as crimes committed in the heat of passion or where there are valid extenuating circumstances. (See People v. Taylor, 33 Ill.2d 417; People v. Nelson, 41 Ill.2d 364.) But where, as here, a defendant engages in such crimes as robbery with a gun in his hand and deliberately shoots down one of the robbery victims in cold blood, I can see no justification for disturbing the sentence. Mr. Justice Klingbiel joins in the above dissents.