Court Opinion

ID: 9860913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:36:27.521741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:52.278104
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McDADE, dissenting: The only issue presented to the court in this appeal is defendant’s contention that the State failed to prove the elements of reckless discharge of a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt. In order for the State to meet its burden of proof in this case, it had to show that defendant “consciously disregarded] a substantial and unjustifiable risk that [he will endanger the bodily safety of an individual (720 ILCS 5/24 — 1.5(a) (West 2002))]; and such disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation.” 720 ILCS 5/4—6 (West 2002). The majority notes that our supreme court has recently determined that the offense of reckless discharge of a firearm has two prongs: (1) recklessly discharging a firearm; and (2) endangering the bodily safety of an individual. People v. Collins, 214 Ill. 2d 206, 824 N.E.2d 262 (2005). Because Collins held that repeatedly shooting a firearm into the air in a residential area satisfied the second prong of the offense and because it appears that defendant lived in a residential area of Kankakee and admitted to firing four shots into the air, Collins, as the majority points out, controls our decision as to the second prong. Therefore, the only issue we examine is whether the State proved that defendant had the requisite mental state to justify a finding that he was guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of reckless discharge of a firearm. It appears from the opinion that the majority believes that his stipulation that he told the police “I can’t believe I was that stupid” somehow equates to a confession of recklessness. I think his admission shows that, in fact, there was nothing “conscious” in his apparent disregard of a possible risk. Nor do I find any showing by the State that defendant knew or should have known of circumstances that made any risk to others “substantial and unjustifiable” at the time he discharged the weapon. Absent such evidence, there is no way to determine that defendant “consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk” of endangering the bodily safety of an individual. The legislature could have crafted a statute making any discharge of a firearm into the air in a residential area a crime, but it chose not to do so. Perhaps the legislators were concerned about the wholesale arrests that would be occasioned by the overly exuberant celebrators of holidays such as the New Year, the Fourth of July, and Memorial Day. Arguably, firing a gun into the air in a residential area at any time is inherently stupid. The legislators, however, whatever their rationale, chose to include a more rigorous mental state — one necessitating proof of “conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk”. I do not think an admission of stupidity satisfies that requirement and therefore respectfully dissent from the contrary finding of the majority.