Court Opinion

ID: 9709715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:53:24.471823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:51.030811
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE CERDA, dissenting: I dissent because I do not believe defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel for failure to tender a jury instruction defining “recklessness.” I would affirm. People v. Bolden (1968), 103 Ill. App. 2d 377, 243 N.E.2d 687, is distinguishable from this case because the jury instruction given omitted any criminal intent or mental state, not just the definition of “recklessness.” The involuntary manslaughter instruction which is given in Bolden was as follows: “The Court instructs the jury, in the language of the statute, that a person who kills an individual without lawful justification, commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts, whether lawful or unlawful, which cause the death, are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual.” Bolden, 103 Ill. App. 2d at 379-80. The instruction failed to contain the concluding portion of section 9 — 3(a) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 9 — 3(a)), which stated: “and he performs them (the criminal acts) recklessly.” Bolden, 103 Ill. App. 2d at 380. There was a complete omission of the word “reckless” in the Bolden involuntary manslaughter instruction. Since the issue of defendant’s concurring recklessness or lack of it was never presented to the jury in any of the instructions, the court ruled that the omission of any mental state in the jury instruction prejudiced defendant.(Bolden, 103 Ill. App. 2d at 381.) Bolden is distinguishable from both People v. Carlson (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 564, 404 N.E.2d 233, and this case. In Carlson, the attorney for defendant did not tender an instruction defining “recklessly.” The court stated it viewed People v. Underwood (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 124, 378 N.E.2d 513, as controlling on this point. (Carlson, 79 Ill. 2d at 583.) The court further stated: “In Underwood the failure was not to instruct on an essential element of the case but was only a failure to give a definitional instruction on the meaning of ‘reasonably believes’ as used in the self-defense instruction which was given in that case. We held that the failure to sua sponte give the definitional instruction was not error. The same reasoning applies here.” (Carlson, 79 Ill. 2d at 584.) The court further stated that counsel’s failure to present the jury instruction defining “recklessly” did not result in substantial prejudice. Carlson, 79 Ill. 2d at 585. In this case the jury was instructed on the essential elements involving involuntary manslaughter including mental state. The definition of “recklessly” has not been held to be an essential element that must be given where there is an issue of involuntary manslaughter. The failure of the attorney for defendant to submit the definitional instruction did not result in an unfair trial. I would affirm the conviction.