People v. Epps

• Citation: 72 Ill.Dec. 941,117 Ill.App.3d 507,453 N.E.2d 816
• Decision Date: 22 August 1983
• Docket Number: No. 81-3073,81-3073
• Parties: , 72 Ill.Dec. 941 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Booker T. EPPS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 816

453 N.E.2d 816

117 Ill.App.3d 507, 72 Ill.Dec. 941

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Booker T. EPPS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 81-3073.

Appellate Court of Illinois First District, First Division.

Aug. 22, 1983.

James J. Doherty, Public Defender of Cook County, Chicago (R.H.R. Silvertrust, Asst. Public Defender, Chicago, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Richard M. Daley, State's Atty., Cook County, Chicago (Michael E. Shabat, Michele A. Grimaldi, and Thomas A. Rieck, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

CAMPBELL, Justice:

Defendant, Booker Epps, after a jury trial, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 9-2(b)) and sentenced to a term of five years. On appeal, defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim's prior convictions offered to show that the victim was the agressor; (2) whether defendant was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) whether the prosecutor's improper comments during closing argument denied defendant a fair trial.

At trial, Officer Robert Thomas testified that on May 21, 1980, at approximately 3:00 p.m., upon responding to a call with his partner, he found a dead man lying on the porch just outside the back door to a second floor apartment located at 4720 West Adams. The victim, who wore a dress shirt and dress pants, was shot in the back of his head and was unarmed. There were no tools or household products near the victim's body. Officer Thomas observed a bullet hole through the back door and shade on the door to the second floor apartment. The officer testified that defendant, who lived in the first floor apartment of that building, told the police that he did not know of a shooting at that location and that he did not own any weapons. However, after defendant consented to a search of the first and second floor apartments, the police officers found a rifle case in defendant's bedroom and a rifle behind some basement paneling. Defendant was arrested and taken to the police station.

Assistant State's Attorney, Richard Schwind, testified that defendant made a statement at the station. In the statement, which was admitted into evidence, defendant said that upon hearing noises, he got his rifle and went upstairs to the vacant second floor apartment. In the kitchen, he caught a glimpse of what appeared to be a person running out the back door and fired in the direction of the door. After seeing a person's body going down, defendant ran and hid his gun behind the panel in his basement. Defendant told the investigating officers that he had not heard gunshots. He subsequently found out that the person he shot was Leon Hatley, who had been in jail with him.

Defendant's testimony was substantially the same except that he testified that as a person appeared from behind the refrigerator, "flashing up as soon as the door swung open," defendant fired a shot. Defendant further testified that his brother owned the second floor apartment and that defendant was the custodian of the premises. On cross-examination, defendant admitted that the victim neither exhibited any weapons nor threatened defendant. Defendant also stated that he lied to the investigating officers regarding not knowing about a shooting and not owning a gun in order to cover up his actions.

During the trial, defendant attempted to introduce evidence of the victim's character by the use of prior convictions for manslaughter and robbery. According to defendant, the purpose of this evidence was to support defendant's testimony that the victim was the aggressor and had illegally broken into the premises. The State maintains that this evidence was properly excluded since defendant had no knowledge of the victim's criminal history at the time defendant shot him. Furthermore, the State asserts that the victim could not have been the aggressor since he already had run outside through the back door at the time he was shot. Additionally, the decedent was unarmed and did not possess or have near him any kind of tools or household goods.

We agree with the State's contention that the determination of whether the defendant's subjective belief was reasonable in a manslaughter case was for the jury, (People v. Evans (1981), 87 Ill.2d 77, 57 Ill.Dec. 622, 429 N.E.2d 520), and that based upon the evidence the jury could have properly concluded that defendant's belief that the shooting was necessary was unreasonable. The trial court did not err in excluding defendant's evidence of the victim's prior conviction for manslaughter and robbery for the justification of the use of deadly force.

Defendant next contends that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant relies upon the affirmative defense of justifiable use of force to protect his dwelling and has cited Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 7-3, which provides:

"A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on * * * or interference with * * * real property (other than a dwelling) * * * [H]owever, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Defendant asserts that his version of what led up to and caused the shooting and death of the victim was the only one given at trial and that the facts were not such as to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant stated that he heard noises and footsteps in the second floor apartment he was trying to rent, where he kept two refrigerators. The only people who had keys were his wife and himself. His wife was at work and he had not given anyone permission to be in the apartment. He concluded that a burglary was in progress and grabbed his loaded rifle and ran upstairs through the apartment. As he entered the kitchen, suddenly a person jumped out from behind one of the refrigerators and defendant fired immediately.

The People argue that the facts refuted defendant's belief that deadly force was necessary. At first, defendant denied having any knowledge of the shooting and denied owning a weapon. After the defendant consented to a search of the building, the police found a rifle case in defendant's bedroom and retrieved a rifle secreted behind some paneling in the basement. Later, at the police station, defendant admitted that he had lied to the police. Thereafter, defendant made a statement wherein he admitted shooting the decedent through the rear door of the second floor with the rifle recovered from the basement.

The uncontradicted evidence showed that the defendant shot an unarmed man, (People v. Easter (1981), 102 Ill.App.3d 974, 58 Ill.Dec. 580, 430...