Court Opinion

ID: 9525570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:05:03.533673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:37.467818
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McLAREN, specially concurring: I concur in the opinion but wish to clarify a point regarding People v. de la Fuente (1981), 92 Ill. App. 3d 525. de la Fuente (92 Ill. App. 3d at 535-36) attempts to classify four categories of deadly weapons. However, I believe that the second category is essentially the same as the fourth category because the fourth category merely determines that an object becomes a deadly weapon when it is used in a deadly manner. If the issue were only whether there were three or four classes, I would let this point pass. However, de la Fuente determines that fourth class deadly weapons are dangerous per se because of the manner in which they were actually used. I believe this holding does violence to the definition of per se. I believe a per se deadly weapon is a deadly weapon regardless of how it is used. Thus, a deadly weapon, based upon its use, does not become a per se deadly weapon simply because it was used in a deadly manner. In the instant case, the defendant’s counsel argued that the baseball bat was not a deadly weapon because it was not actually used as such. I do not wish to imply, by my concurrence, that I agree a baseball bat becomes a per se deadly weapon when used as a bludgeon. Regardless whether a baseball bat is or may be used as a bludgeon, it does not, in my opinion, become a per se deadly weapon simply because it was used in a deadly manner. My concurrence is an attempt at ameliorating the corruption of the term “per se deadly weapon.” In all other aspects of the opinion, I concur.