PEOPLE v. WILLEY

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 79-939

Attorney(S)

Robert Agostinelli and Peter A. Carusona, both of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Ottawa, for appellant. John R. Clerkin, State's Attorney, of Macomb (John X. Breslin and Kenneth A. Wilhelm, both of State's Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People.

Judges

Mr. JUSTICE STENGEL delivered the opinion of the court:

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Defendant Steven Willey was convicted of aggravated battery and resisting a peace officer and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment—2 years for aggravated battery and 364 days for resisting a peace officer. He was tried alongside his brother, Randy Willey, whose appeal was addressed separately. The facts pertinent to this appeal were fully detailed in the companion case (No. 79-938) and are not restated here. The court previously held that the defendant’s bail-bond deposit was properly used to reimburse the county for public defender services under an unjust enrichment theory, without addressing the constitutionality of the relevant statutory provision. This appeal challenges the convictions and raises issues related to jury instructions and the relationship between the two convictions.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the defendant’s convictions for aggravated battery and resisting a peace officer should be reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Whether the jury instruction on justifiable use of force in defense of a person, tendered by the defendant, should have been given to the jury.
Whether the conviction for resisting a peace officer must be vacated on the ground that it was carved from the same physical act as the aggravated battery conviction (not decided due to reversal on other grounds).

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

Defendant presented evidence that he was clubbed from behind by an unknown person and acted in self-defense, supporting a justifiable use of force instruction.

State's Arguments

The State contended that the trial court’s refusal to give the justifiable use of force instruction was harmless error.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
People v. Willey, No. 79-938 (1980), 85 Ill. App.3d 749	Factual background and issues common to both appeals	Referenced to avoid restating facts and issues; supported reversal and remand for a new trial.
People v. Athey, 43 Ill. App.3d 261, 356 N.E.2d 1332 (1976)	Requirement to give a justifiable use of force jury instruction when evidence supports an affirmative defense of resisting arrest	Applied to determine that the defendant’s testimony warranted the instruction on self-defense.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reversed and remanded the defendant’s convictions primarily because the companion case (No. 79-938) required reversal and remand on shared issues. The court declined to rule on whether the resisting arrest conviction should be vacated as duplicative of the aggravated battery conviction, given the reversal on other grounds. The court analyzed whether the trial court erred in refusing the defendant’s tendered jury instruction on justifiable use of force in defense of a person. Citing People v. Athey, the court explained that such an instruction is warranted when the defendant presents evidence supporting an affirmative defense. Because the defendant testified that he was unexpectedly attacked from behind and acted in self-defense, the court held that the jury could have found justification for the use of force. Although the State argued that the refusal to give the instruction was harmless error, the court did not decide this question due to the necessity of reversal on other grounds.

Holding and Implications

The court REVERSED the judgment of the Circuit Court of McDonough County and REMANDED the case for a new trial consistent with the opinion.

The direct effect of this decision is to vacate the current convictions and require a new trial. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing law regarding justifiable use of force instructions and the treatment of bail-bond deposits as reimbursement funds under an unjust enrichment theory.

Show full summary ...

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVEN WILLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

Mr. JUSTICE STENGEL delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal by defendant, Steven Willey, from his convictions for aggravated battery and resisting a peace officer. As a result of being found guilty of these charges, defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 2 years for aggravated battery, and 364 days for resisting a peace officer.

Tried with defendant was his brother, codefendant Randy Willey, whose appeal has been addressed in a separate opinion. ( People v. Willey (1980), 85 Ill. App.3d 749.) Since the facts pertinent to this appeal are fully set forth in the opinion in No. 79-938, those facts need not be restated here. In addition, the issues common to both appeals were also decided in the opinion for No. 79-938 and require a reversal and remandment for a new trial in this cause as well. Moreover, it was decided that defendant's bail-bond deposit was properly used as a fund from which the county could be reimbursed for the services of the public defender based on an unjust enrichment theory without considering the constitutionality of section 110-7(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1978 Supp., ch. 38, par. 110-7(g)).

Since reversal and remandment is required, we need not consider whether defendant's conviction for resisting a peace officer must be vacated on the ground that it is carved from the same physical act as his aggravated battery conviction. In order to provide guidance to the trial court on remandment, we must, however, determine whether a jury instruction tendered by defendant on the justifiable use of force in defense of a person should have been given.

A jury instruction patterned on Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 24.06 (2d ed. 1971) may be given where the accused is charged with resisting arrest and is required to be given when the defendant has presented some evidence from which a jury could find each element of the affirmative defense. ( People v. Athey (1976), 43 Ill. App.3d 261, 356 N.E.2d 1332.) Here, defendant testified that someone unknown to him clubbed him from behind and he, therefore, defended himself. If the jury believed defendant, the jury could find defendant was justified in using force to defend himself.

The State argues that the refusal to give this instruction was harmless. Whether the refusal to give the instruction would ordinarily be harmless error need not be decided, however, since a reversal and remandment is required on other grounds.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of McDonough County is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial to be conducted in accordance with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

ALLOY, P.J., and SCOTT, J., concur.