Court Opinion

ID: 9740260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:31:04.717117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:17.142463
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, specially concurring: I concur with the result reached by my esteemed colleagues. I concur also with the legal propositions upon which the result is based. However, I deem it necessary to add one cautionary point. * As shown by the authorities cited in the opinion, wide latitude should be permitted in cross-examination by defense counsel, and a demonstration of bias is a proper goal. However, in the instant case, this accepted standard should not be mistakenly applied to the substantive legal questions arising in connection with proof of self-defense. It appears to me that self-defense depends in part not only upon the fact of aggression, but also upon the subjective element that the character and past conduct of the aggressor were known to the defendant. Where self-defense is an issue, the law permits proof of specific acts of violence and threats by the deceased. Prior conduct of the aggressor may properly be shown by a defendant as an element of self-defense provided that defendant was aware and had knowledge of these past events. (See People v. Stomhaugh (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 130, 139, 284 N.E.2d 640; People v. Davis (1963), 29 Ill. 2d 127, 130, 193 N.E.2d 841; People v. Adams (1962), 25 Ill. 2d 568, 572, 185 N.E.2d 676; People v. Carbajal (1978), 67 Ill. App. 3d 236, 241, 384 N.E.2d 824; and People v. Graves (1978), 61 Ill. App. 3d 732, 740, 378 N.E.2d 293.) The important matter here is “to show the defendant’s state of mind.” Stomhaugh, 52 Ill. 2d 130, 139. In the instant case, although proof of past conduct by Officer Stanley and his prior problems in connection with his status as a police officer were competent and material to show his possible bias as a witness against the defendant, this evidence was neither competent nor proper on the substantive issue of self-defense. Upon a retrial of the instant case, a determination should be made as to whether this problem should be the subject of a cautionary instruction to the jury.