Court Opinion

ID: 9735295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:08:19.719044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:56.913396
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HARRISON, dissenting: An instruction defining a lesser offense should be given if there is evidence in the record which, if believed by the jury, would reduce the crime to the lesser offense. If the record contains any credible evidence that would reduce the crime of first degree murder to involuntary manslaughter, an involuntary manslaughter instruction is warranted. People v. DiVincenzo, 183 Ill. 2d 239, 249 (1998). The crime for which defendant was charged took place in 1986. The law in effect at that time provided that a person committed murder when he killed an individual without lawful justification and, inter alia, (1) he either intended to kill or do great bodily harm to that individual or another, or knew that the acts which caused the death would cause death to that individual or another; or (2) he knew that such acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual or another. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, pars. 9 — 1(a)(1), (a)(2). By contrast, a person was guilty of involuntary manslaughter when he unintentionally killed an individual without lawful justification and his acts, whether lawful or unlawful, which caused the death were such as were “likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he perform[ed] them recklessly.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 9 — 3. The main difference between these offenses is the mental state that accompanies the conduct resulting in the victim’s death. DiVincenzo, 183 Ill. 2d at 249. The crux of involuntary manslaughter is recklessness. “A person is reckless or acts recklessly, when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow, described by the statute defining the offense; and such disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 4 — 6. The facts and circumstances of each case must be considered when determining whether an involuntary manslaughter instruction is warranted. DiVincenzo, 183 Ill. 2d at 251. Based upon the facts adduced at trial here, I disagree with the appellate court and would hold that defendant was entitled to an involuntary manslaughter instruction. Decedent was killed when his pistol discharged during a tavern brawl with defendant. There was apparently no significant disparity in size and strength between defendant and the decedent, and the struggle which led to the decedent’s death was not long in duration. Both of these are relevant considerations. DiVincenzo, 183 Ill. 2d at 251. While a jury could have found that defendant was the initial aggressor, our court has specifically held that an involuntary manslaughter instruction may be appropriate even where the defendant may have provoked the confrontation because “a defendant may act recklessly where he commits deliberate acts but disregards the risks of his conduct.” DiVincenzo, 183 Ill. 2d at 252. How exactly decedent was shot is disputed. Some testimony indicated that defendant pointed the gun at him when it fired. Pointing a loaded gun at another has been found to constitute reckless conduct that will support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter: See People v. Moczarney, 65 Ill. App. 3d 410, 416 (1978). The act becomes even more reckless when the one pointing the loaded weapon is under the influence of intoxicating liquor. See People v. Roberts, 36 Ill. App. 3d 811, 819 (1976). At the time decedent was killed, both he and defendant had been drinking. In ruling against defendant, the appellate court considered it significant that the gun was initially introduced into the fight by the decedent rather than by defendant. I cannot share that view. The fact that the weapon was drawn by decedent is consistent with the alternate theory that defendant was acting out of self-defense. It does not, however, preclude a conclusion that defendant’s conduct was reckless within the meaning of the law. Once defendant succeeded in taking the gun. away from the decedent, he could have run away or discarded the weapon so that the decedent could not reach it. Instead, he remained in the fray with the weapon in his hand. There is nothing to suggest that he had to do so, or reasonably believed that he had to do so, in order to insure his own safety. In the best of circumstances, merely handling a loaded gun in close proximity to others while under the influence of alcohol is a reckless act. See Moczarney, 65 Ill. App. 3d at 416. When the loaded gun is being handled in the midst of a bar fight with an opponent whose blood-alcohol content is several times higher than the legal limit, as was the case here, the recklessness is manifest. It is a conscious disregard for a substantial and unjustifiable risk and “a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 4 — 6. To the extent that there is inconsistency between defendant’s contention that the jury should have been instructed on involuntary manslaughter and his alternate claim of self-defense, the inconsistency is not fatal to this appeal. Illinois law allows a criminal defendant to raise inconsistent defenses. Indeed, we have specifically held that where there is evidentiary support for an involuntary manslaughter instruction, such an instruction is not prohibited by a claim of self-defense. People v. Whiters, 146 Ill. 2d 437, 442 (1992). For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied defendant’s request to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter. The judgment of the appellate court affirming the circuit court’s judgment should therefore be reversed, and the cause should be remanded to the circuit court for a new trial. Accordingly, I dissent. JUSTICE BILANDIC joins in this dissent.