Court Opinion

ID: 9523566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:44:08.38415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:30.499556
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE ALLOY dissenting: I do not believe there was reversible error in the refusal of plaintiffs Instructions 13 and 17 and in the giving of defendants’ Instruction 18 in this case. Plaintiffs Instructions 13 and 17 emphasized the defendant’s use of force likely to cause “death or great bodily harm” only if the defendant reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent “death or great bodily harm to himself.” Such instructions describe conditions which are unrelated to the facts in the case, where the discharge of the shotgun was obviously into the ground and certainly never aimed in such way as to intentionally cause death or even great bodily harm. Defendants’ Instruction 18, which follows the instruction given in Irwin v. Omar Bakeries, Inc., 48 Ill.App.2d 297, 198 N.E.2d 700, told the jury that if the defendant believed he was threatened with bodily harm by plaintiff and if plaintiffs acts were such as to induce a reasonable man situated as defendant was to think that there was an immediate danger of his being injured, defendant had the right to use reasonable force to defend himself. While I agree that this is not a wholly satisfactory instruction, particularly when a shotgun is involved, under the circumstances, I do not believe that the refusal of plaintiffs instructions and the giving of defendants’ Instruction 18 were errors of sufficient magnitude, in view of the facts in the case and the jury verdict, to justify a reversal.