Court Opinion

ID: 9521420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:04:34.335042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:44.721069
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WELCH, specially concurring: I am not convinced that the defendant was prejudiced by the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury on the affirmative defenses of voluntary intoxication and self-defense. There was little evidence to suggest that the defendant was so intoxicated as to negate the intent to commit murder (People v. Proper (1979), 68 Ill. App. 3d 250, 385 N.E.2d 882), and certainly not enough evidence was presented to render the refusal to instruct on that defense reversible error. (People v. Jones (1972), 5 Ill. App. 3d 926, 284 N.E.2d 404.) Moreover, the affirmative defense of self-defense was not available to the defendant because he did not admit that he shot the deceased. (People v. Joyner (1972), 50 Ill. 2d 302, 278 N.E.2d 756; People v. Lahori (1973), 13 Ill. App. 3d 572, 300 N.E.2d 761.) However, the discovery sanctions imposed by the trial court denied the defendant a fair trial in another way. The defendant requested that the jury be instructed that he could be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter if he acted in the belief that force was necessary to protect himself, but that belief was unreasonable. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 9 — 2(a).) Although the trial court instructed the jury on the “provocation” form of voluntary manslaughter (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 9 — 2(b)), it refused the defendant’s instructions pertaining to the unreasonable belief that force was necessary. The court stated that these instructions were intended to be coupled with those on the affirmative defense of self-defense, which had been excluded as a discovery sanction. In taking this action, the trial court imposed a discovery sanction which did not relate to the defendant’s failure to disclose his affirmative defenses. Because the case law in this State requires that these voluntary manslaughter instructions be given when even minimal evidence is introduced on the defendant’s belief that the use of force was necessary (People v. Lockett (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 546, 413 N.E.2d 378; People v. Joyner), the defendant was denied a fair trial when the jury was not instructed on this issue. For these reasons, I concur in the result reached by the majority.