Court Opinion

ID: 9534617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:41:23.531325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:47.866544
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HARRISON, dissenting: While I agree with the majority that People v. Reddick (1988), 123 Ill. 2d 184, 526 N.E.2d 141, is of no assistance in determining whether the jury herein was adequately instructed regarding the elements of the offense of attempted murder and the State’s burden of proof with respect to the justifiable use of force, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Reddick fails to establish any law which applies to the instant case. In Reddick, the Illinois Supreme Court reaffirmed its previous holding that “certain instructions, such as the burden of proof and elements of the offense, are essential to a fair trial and that the failure to give such instructions constitutes grave error when, viewing the record as a whole, it appears that the jury was not apprised of the People’s burden of proof.” (123 Ill. 2d at 198, 526 N.E.2d at 147.) The Reddick court concluded that although one of the defendants had not raised the instructional error at trial, in a post-trial motion or in the direct appeal, where the error was grave, waiver should not preclude this rule from applying to him. (123 Ill. 2d at 198-99, 526 N.E.2d at 146-47.) Therefore, in the case at bar, the trial court’s order correctly cited Reddick for the proposition that where the jury is not properly instructed on the State’s burden to disprove an affirmative defense, grave error occurs such that the doctrine of waiver should not bar consideration of the issue. Here, as the majority admits, the failure to include the element requiring the State to prove that defendant was not justified in using the force which he used, in the issues instruction for attempted murder, constituted clear instructional error. Therefore, under Reddick, defendant need show nothing more in order to establish the viability of the issue for review, despite waiver of the error. Further, in People v. Flowers (1990), 138 Ill. 2d 218, 234-35, 561 N.E.2d 674, 680, the Illinois Supreme Court considered a defendant’s Reddick claim despite the defendant’s failure to specifically raise the issue prior to his post-conviction hearing, agreeing that, as in Reddick, the “important principle involved” required its consideration. Although the court in Flowers ultimately determined that the particular instructional error identified in Reddick was addressed through the use of a new constitutional rule which could not be applied retroactively on collateral review, this determination was totally separate from the question of whether a grave instructional error of this type is waived. Thus, contrary to the majority’s view, I do not believe the doctrine of waiver prevents our review of this issue. The trial court properly considered the jury instruction issue on post-conviction review despite defendant’s failure to raise the issue in an earlier proceeding. Nor do I agree with the majority that the instructions given in the instant case, when considered as a whole, sufficiently informed the jury of the State’s burden of proof. Modifications to the issues instructions are necessary when an affirmative defense is raised even when an instruction defining the affirmative defense is given — as was the case here: “ ‘ “[The drafter of the Illinois Pattern jury instructions] has concluded that the elements or issues of an affirmative defense should be treated in two ways: first, by definition following the definition of the crime with which the defendant is charged ***, and second, in the same instruction with the issues or elements of the crime and the state’s burden of proof.” (IPI Criminal No. 25.00, Committee Comments, at 435-36 (1968).)’ ” People v. Brophy (1981), 96 Ill. App. 3d 936, 942-43, 422 N.E.2d 158, 164, quoting People v. Lewis (1977), 53 Ill. App. 3d 89, 93, 368 N.E.2d 619, 623. Here, the instruction setting forth the elements of the offense charged against defendant, attempt, erroneously failed to include that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was acting without lawful justification. Even if the instructions are considered as a whole, this error still remains. Therefore, I would affirm the trial court’s vacation of defendant’s conviction for attempted murder and would remand the case for a new trial on the charge. See Brophy, 96 Ill. App. 3d at 946, 422 N.E.2d at 165-66; Reddick, 123 Ill. 2d at 199. 526 N.E.2d at 147.