Court Opinion

ID: 9720131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:17:04.140758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:13.405627
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HARTMAN, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur with the majority decision to reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand the cause for a new trial; however, I dissent from the majority’s finding that the court abused its discretion in refusing to give self-defense instructions to the jury. Defendant testified that he and the victim engaged in a scuffle at the top of the staircase before both fell down the stairs. After defendant fell to the middle of the stairs, he stood up, walked to the bottom of the stairs where the victim lay, and kicked the victim approximately six or seven times; he only stopped kicking the victim after a witness yelled. Defendant then went into the house, became angry about his broken glasses, went back outside, walked down to the second stair and jumped, landing on the victim’s back. He attempted to jump over the victim so that he would not get “messed *** up” by jumping in the bushes. These facts and circumstances do not warrant a self-defense instruction. The witnesses’ testimony and the wounds suffered by the victim demonstrate that, at the time defendant kicked the victim several times and jumped on the victim’s back, the victim presented no threat to defendant. The physical contact between the two men had ended. In addition, defendant’s own testimony indicates that his jump onto the victim’s back had nothing to do with defending himself. Under these facts, I cannot agree that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the tender of self-defense instructions. Accordingly, I concur in the majority’s result but dissent from the majority’s finding that the circuit court erred in denying defendant’s request for self-defense instructions.