Court Opinion

ID: 9531109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:07:35.074323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:20.963117
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GREIMAN, dissenting: I am compelled to dissent from the majority’s thoughtful analysis with respect to the constitutionality of section 9 — 3(b). While the majority provides a compelling argument as to the constitutionality of the statute, I believe that the language “shall be presumed to be evidence of a reckless act” expresses a presumption which relieves the State from the obligation of proving an essential element of the crime and inappropriately shifts the burden of coming forward with evidence to the defendant. The constitutionality of the statute has been previously considered by the Appellate Court, Third District in People v. Pomykala, 326 Ill. App. 3d 390 (2001), and is presently on appeal to our supreme court. I agree with the Third District in its analysis.