People v SM Case Brief

.docx

School

Liberty University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

346

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by SargentArt8983

Barbara Fuller January 29, 2024 Caption People v. S.M., 416 N.E.2d 1212 (93 Ill. App. Ct. 3d 1981) Facts Evidentiary Facts: On April 28, 1978, the minor respondent shot and killed two teenage boys while wounding two others in their high school parking lot. Procedural Facts: A petition for adjudication of wardship was filed charging the respondent with the murder of Michael Truppa and Robert Paulish, as well as aggravated battery upon Michael Gale and Russel Peterson, and with unlawful use of a weapon. Before the trial, the respondent pleaded guilty to unlawful use of a weapon. Following the trial, he was adjudged delinquent for the commission of two counts of voluntary manslaughter and two counts of aggravated battery. A dispositional hearing was conducted, and the respondent reported to the Illinois Department of Corrections. He appealed the findings, contending that: (1) the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent was not acting in self-defense, and (2) the trial court's dispositional order was contrary to the weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion. Issue

Was the claim of self-defense disproved beyond reasonable doubt? Rule of Law A person is justified in the use of deadly force when that person "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself * * *." (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 7-1.) As stated in People v. Motuzas (1933), 352 Ill. 340, 346, 185 N.E. 614, 617, Holding We believe that the evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent did not act in self-defense. Rationale The appellate court found that the evidence presented by the trial court failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellee did not act in self-defense. The fact finder had the duty to prove that the respondent's self-defense was unjustified. It was the duty of the State to show that the respondent's use of self-defense was not warranted. The court then explains that the respondent attempted on multiple occasions to avoid confrontation. He apologized for swearing and immediately retreated from the victims, made numerous attempts to flee, and displayed a weapon/fired a warning shot to stop the victims from their assent. Even after being shot, the victims still pursued the respondent. With being outnumbered 4 to 1, the appellate court states, "Under these circumstances we cannot say that the respondent's belief that he was in immediate danger

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help