Court Opinion

ID: 9744733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:14:26.672717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:21:17.601084
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE GREEN, dissenting: I agree with the majority that a person while in a state of automatism brought on by a psychomotor epileptic seizure cannot perform a voluntary act and, therefore, cannot be guilty of an offense of which that voluntary act is a necessary element. I do not agree that under the circumstances of this case, justice requires that a new trial be given defendant for the failure by the court to instruct the jury as to the requirement for a voluntary act. Neither do I agree that the instructions given were misleading. Most of my disagreement with the majority stems from my belief that an epileptic striking another person while in a state of automatism not only lacks the volition to perform a voluntary act but is also insane within the meaning of section 6 — 2 of the Criminal Code because that epileptic is at that time suffering from a mental disease or defect that results in the epileptic’s lack of substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law at that time. It seems to me to be axiomatic that if defendant struck the police officer at a time when his body was not responding to his conscious mind because of a particular type of epileptic seizure, then at that time defendant lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. The lack of capacity for volition negates both the ability to voluntarily act and the ability to prevent an involuntary act. This reasoning is substantiated by the comments of the drafting committee for the Criminal Code. The comments with reference to section 6 — 2 discuss the history of Illinois case law leading to the two part test of the section and then state, “The section accepts the position, as did the prior Illinois law, that impairment of volitional capacity no less than impairment of cognition must be included in the formulation.” (Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 38, par. 6 — 2, Committee Comments, at 329 (Smith-Hurd 1972).) The impairment of volitional capacity is the essence of automatism. Defense counsel at trial chose to try the case upon the theory that the defendant was insane. The evidence of insanity was based upon the opinion of Dr. Ludin that, at the time of the occurrence, defendant was suffering a psychomotor seizure producing a state of automatism and that this was a mental defect which would have deprived defendant of the substantial capacity to appreciate right from wrong and to “conform his conduct to the requirements of law.” No case has been called to my attention that would have prevented defendant from trying the case on this theory or that would have permitted the court to strike Dr. Ludin’s testimony on the theory that automatism is, as a matter of law, not insanity. The theory that the jury should have been instructed upon the requirements for a voluntary act has arisen for the first time on appeal. The very evidence relied upon on appeal to show that defendant was in a state of automatism and therefore incapable of performing a voluntary act is the same evidence relied upon at trial to show that defendant was in a state of automatism and therefore insane. Under the clear terms of section 6 — 2 and under the instructions on insanity given by the trial court, the jury was required to return one of the verdicts of not guilty unless the jury determined beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant possessed both volition and cognition at the time he committed the acts in question unless the jury also determined that any lack of volition or cognition did not result from a mental disease or mental defect. The only testimony describing the nature of defendant’s claimed condition of automatism defined his condition as a mental disease or mental defect. I thus conclude that the jury must have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was not in a state of automatism which destroyed his volition at the time of the occurrence. For this reason, I further conclude that the jury rejected the evidence which would have supported the need for the instruction on the requirement for a voluntary act. Were such an instruction tendered, it should have been given. Since it was not tendered, I do not think that justice requires the extraordinary step of granting a new trial so that another jury can make a new determination upon the proof rejected by the first jury. The complaint at trial about the instruction on insanity concerned the contention that error occurred in submitting to the jury the possibility of finding defendant not guilty by reason of insanity and not recovered. The defense contended that since defendant had recovered from his seizure, he was no longer insane. Since the jury found defendant guilty, that question is no longer an issue. The determination of the majority, however, is that the instruction on insanity, not objected to by defendant at trial, misled the jury because it failed to distinguish the behavior of a person lacking the substantial capacities described in the two part test of section 6 — 2 from automatic behavior by an individual who possesses the requisite capacity. In this case, the evidence of defendant’s insanity and the evidence that defendant lacked the ability to perform a voluntary act was the same — evidence that he was in a state of automatism at the time of the act. As I have indicated, I believe that a person lacking the capacity to perform a voluntary act who nevertheless commits a wrongful involuntary act, lacks the capacity to prevent the doing of that involuntary wrongful act. I share with Lord Denning and the majority of commentators on the subject (LaFave and Scott 341) a belief in the need for protective custody for persons who repeatedly attack others while in a state of automatism. The situation merits an attempt by the legislature to devise a procedure balancing the rights of the public to be protected against the rights of the person subject to automatism to be at liberty and basing any deprivation of that liberty upon the degree of danger presented by that individual, (O’Connor v. Donaldson (1975), 422 U.S. 563,45 L. Ed. 2d 396, 95 S. Ct. 2486.) I do not agree that the Criminal Code is sufficient. Most of the authority cited by the majority discussing automatism is of comparatively recent origin, and the comments of the drafting committee give no indication of any consideration of the problem by that committee. The instant case must be decided upon the basis of existing law, however. As I have indicated, since the jury rejected the underlying assumption upon which is based the need for an instruction setting forth the requiremént for a voluntary act as an element of the offense, I would not grant a new trial. I do not deem the sentence to be excessive. Accordingly, I would affirm the conviction for aggravated battery and the sentence imposed thereon. I agree that the conviction for obstructing a police officer could not stand if the aggravated battery conviction was upheld.