People v. Foster

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: SIMKINS; SMITH, P.J., and TRAPP
• Citation: People v. Foster, 319 N.E.2d 522, 23 Ill.App.3d 559 (Ill. App. 1974)
• Decision Date: 21 November 1974
• Docket Number: No. 12617,12617
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence FOSTER, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 522

319 N.E.2d 522

23 Ill.App.3d 559

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence FOSTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12617.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Nov. 21, 1974.

John F. McNichols, Deputy Defender, John L. Swartz, Asst. Defender, Springfield, for defendant-appellant.

Bobby F. Sanders, Coles County State's Atty., Charleston, for plaintiff-appellee.

SIMKINS, Justice:

Defendant, Clarence Foster, appeals from his conviction for the offense of burglary in violation of Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, sec. 19--1 and from a sentence imposed of three to nine years. The only issue raised on this appeal is whether the court erred in giving a misleading instruction to the jury on the law regarding the defense of intoxication.

Defendant was indicted for the alleged burglary of the residence of the Fred Sampson family on April 22, 1973. An essential element of that offense is that defendant enter the building with the specific intent to commit a theft therein. Conflicting evidence was adduced at the trial regarding the degree of defendant's intoxication. Fred Sampson, defendant's employer, testified that upon his return from a fishing trip he discovered defendant in his kitchen. He testified that defendant stated to him, 'Forgive me, Dad, I'm drunk.' He further stated that it appeared that defendant had been drinking but defendant did not stumble and spoke to him clearly. Margaret Sampson testified that she was with her husband when defendant was discovered in their house, and that defendant walked out of the house without weaving or stumbling. She testified that defendant had been drinking, and that she smelled liquor on his breath. Fred Sampson, Jr. testified that he observed defendant leave the house smoking a cigarette without staggering. Iva Freeman, defendant's sister, testified to drinking with defendant on the day in question, and stated that when defendant left her house he was 'feeling no pain.' She stated that upon his return he was 'still pretty well loaded then' and staggering. Defendant testified that he was drinking heavily the entire day in question, and that he did not remember being at the Sampson residence.

At the jury instruction conference the State submitted People's Instruction No. 3 which stated:

An intoxicated person is criminally responsible for his conduct unless his intoxication renders him incapable of acting intentionally.

A voluntary condition of drinkenness is no excuse for the commission of a crime.

Defendant's counsel then objected to the instruction:

Mr. Davis: Object because he says in the second paragraph he takes away what he says in the first paragraph, the defense is voluntary, defense of drunkeness. In other words, you can't say that he could possibly excuse his drunkness if it was to the extent that the voluntary condition of drunkeness is no excuse for the commission of a crime, that it is an excuse.

Mr. Sanders: Your Honor, both of these are in the spirit of the statute and that will be holding that...