Court Opinion

ID: 9722035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:14:58.967198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:30.120993
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE STEIGMANN, specially concurring: Although I fully concur in the judgment reached by the majority opinion as well as most of its reasoning, I do not agree with its discussion. (265 Ill. App. 3d at 187.) This court should affirm defendant’s conviction because defendant failed to submit an instruction correctly stating the law as he claims it to be. (265 Ill. App. 3d at 187-188.) As a result, he has waived this jury instruction issue unless plain error exists affecting his. substantial rights. Clearly, on the facts of this case, there is no plain error, so we need not discuss the matter further. In Burton, this court rejected the defendant’s argument that the charge of aggravated criminal sexual assault contained a mental state. In doing so, this court resurrected the discredited notions of specific and criminal intent. Although I dissented in part in Burton (201 Ill. App. 3d at 123-29, 558 N.E.2d at 1374-78 (Steigmann, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)), I recognize that it continues to be good law insofar as criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual assault cases are concerned. However, the case on appeal before us involves the charge of armed violence. Thus, the majority’s discussion of Burton is not only dicta, it is unnecessary dicta.