{ "id": 2557821, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John D. Lighting, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Lighting", "decision_date": "1967-05-09", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 50,748", "first_page": "430", "last_page": "435", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "83 Ill. App. 2d 430" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "148 F Supp 526", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 4277853 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "528" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/148/0526-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 US 83", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11716714 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/373/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 NE2d 169", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 Ill2d 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2802572 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "382" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/24/0380-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 464, "char_count": 7520, "ocr_confidence": 0.629, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.174882810786185e-07, "percentile": 0.5873103026469882 }, "sha256": "c4ba567a2caea9cf1494550a959363f7bcc75941ac30a60028d66a28de545b5e", "simhash": "1:2d08ed3285681f3d", "word_count": 1274 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:35:59.641079+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John D. Lighting, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. JUSTICE BURKE\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nDefendant was found guilty at a bench trial of murder and was sentenced to 15 to 20 years in the penitentiary. On this appeal he maintains the State failed to rebut his affirmative defense of compulsion and that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to discover certain information allegedly in the possession of the State.\nDefendant was indicted with Willie Saddle for the murder of Isabelle Simms on October 2, 1960. In January of 1961, defendant was found to be mentally defective and unable to cooperate with counsel, and was confined to the Illinois State Security Hospital. Shortly thereafter a nolle prosequi was entered on the indictment against Willie Saddle. On November 19, 1962, defendant was declared sane and able to cooperate with counsel. This trial was had in January of 1965.\nDefendant testified he arrived in Chicago from his home in Mississippi some two weeks before he was arrested for the crime. At that time he was 16 years of age and had a fourth-grade education. Shortly after his arrival in Chicago defendant met Willie Saddle and at approximately 6:00 on the evening of October 1, 1960, Saddle requested defendant to accompany him to a girl\u2019s house. At 12:00 or 12:30 a. m. defendant and Saddle proceeded to Isabelle Simms\u2019 barbecue shop on the south side of Chicago.\nDefendant testified that Saddle took him into an alley near the shop and told him to go into the shop and ask the woman for money. Defendant refused but went into the shop, purchased a bottle of soda pop, drank it and walked out. Defendant testified that Saddle then threatened his life with a gun if he did not return to the barbecue shop and demand money from Mrs. Simms. Saddle placed a grey coat on defendant\u2019s shoulders, the right pocket of which contained a revolver. Defendant entered the shop and demanded money from Mrs. Simms with which demand she complied. As defendant was leaving the shop Mrs. Simms called to him, drew a gun and began firing at him. Defendant returned the fire and Mrs. Simms was mortally wounded. Defendant fled the scene accompanied by Saddle and was apprehended by the police in the vicinity of the barbecue shop a short time later.\nMrs. Anna Watts, employed by Mrs. Simms as a cook in the barbecue shop on the night of the shooting, testified that defendant entered the premises at 12:00 or 12:30 a. m., purchased a bottle of soda pop and left. Defendant returned to the shop three hours later and stood near the jukebox with his hand in his pocket. When Mrs. Simms received money from a customer and was about to put it into the cash register, defendant drew his gun and demanded the money as well as a gun which Mrs. Simms kept in the cash register. Mrs. Watts testified that defendant stated, \u201cGive me that gun. I don\u2019t want to kill you.\u201d Mrs. Simms and defendant then exchanged gunfire after which Mrs. Simms fell to the floor and defendant fled the premises.\nDefendant first maintains he advanced an affirmative defense of compulsion in that Saddle, by means of threats against his life, coerced and forced him into committing the robbery which resulted in the death of Mrs. Simms, and that the State failed to rebut his defense. Ill Rev Stats 1959, c 38, par 597 (presently par 7-11, c 38). Defendant\u2019s argument presupposes the evidence in the record made out the defense of compulsion. On the contrary, the evidence was against the defense raised by defendant. Mrs. Watts testified defendant entered the premises alone about three hours after his first visit that morning and lingered near the jukebox for a short time pretending to make a selection from the music. He waited until a customer paid his bill, at which time he turned from the jukebox with his gun drawn and demanded money from Mrs. Simms. He also demanded the gun which Mrs. Simms kept in the cash register. After defendant received some money he told her \u201cthat is enough\u201d and was on his way out of the premises when the gunfire was exchanged.\nThe trial court expressly stated that Mrs. Watts was an alert and credible witness and obviously chose to believe her account of the incident. People v. Reaves, 24 Ill2d 380, 382, 183 NE2d 169. Under this evidence defendant was not acting under coercion or compulsion when he shot Mrs. Simms. He was out of Saddle\u2019s presence for some length of time prior thereto and had ample opportunity to withdraw from the robbery if he chose to do so. Defendant lingered at the jukebox for a time, waiting for a customer to pay his bill before demanding money from Mrs. Simms. Furthermore, the evidence shows defendant was predisposed to use the gun in his possession when he demanded Mrs. Simms\u2019 gun during the course of the robbery, stating, \u201cI don\u2019t want to kill you.\u201d Finally, defendant was on his way out of the barbecue shop when the shooting occurred. All of these facts show defendant was not acting under compulsion when he shot Mrs. Simms.\nAssuming arguendo defendant was forced to perpetrate the robbery due to threats upon his life by Willie Saddle, the evidence shows the claimed compulsion had nothing to do with the shooting. The testimony of both defendant and Mrs. Watts shows defendant had already committed the robbery and was on his way out of the barbecue shop when the exchange of gunfire took place. The existence of the threat or coercion which defendant claims to have existed is doubtful for the reason that defendant was out of Saddle\u2019s presence for a good length of time prior to the shooting. See Baxter v. People, 3 Gilm (8 Ill) 368, 383. The record is devoid of any evidence that defendant was acting under compulsion at the time he shot and killed Mrs. Simms.\nDefendant\u2019s other contention is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for information allegedly in the possession of the State. The scope of the motion was general and all-encompassing. The motion requested the Grand Jury minutes with regard to statements allegedly made by defendant and Saddle, memoranda of State interviews with several persons concerning the shooting, reports of police and detective investigations and statements received thereby, information pertaining to the arrest of Willie Saddle, and \u201cany other items, photographs, laboratory reports, statements and documents which will assist your petitioner in preparing his defense. . . .\u201d Under the circumstances we feel the trial court properly denied defendant\u2019s motion.\nDefendant cites the case of Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83, in support of his position that he was entitled to receive the matters requested in his motion. The Brady case is not in point for the reason that defendant specifically requested the confession of a codefendant which was thereafter purposely withheld by the prosecuting attorney. Such is not the situation here. The State is not required to produce a defendant\u2019s witnesses or to create his defenses. United States v. Di Gregorio, 148 F Supp 526, 528.\nFor these reasons the judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nLYONS, P. J. and BRYANT, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. JUSTICE BURKE" } ], "attorneys": [ "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Shelvin Singer and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.", "John J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and David B. Selig, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John D. Lighting, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 50,748.\nFirst District, Second Division.\nMay 9, 1967.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Shelvin Singer and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.\nJohn J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and David B. Selig, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0430-01", "first_page_order": 436, "last_page_order": 441 }