{ "id": 2693911, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EARLEAN TYLER, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Tyler", "decision_date": "1989-09-08", "docket_number": "No. 1-87-1151", "first_page": "547", "last_page": "554", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "188 Ill. App. 3d 547" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "494 N.E.2d 677", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 Ill. App. 3d 813", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3500909 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/144/0813-01" ] }, { "cite": "486 N.E.2d 929", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 Ill. App. 3d 899", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 8499746 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/138/0899-01" ] }, { "cite": "377 N.E.2d 28", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 Ill. 2d 16", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5444161 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/72/0016-01" ] }, { "cite": "538 N.E.2d 461", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 Ill. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3228708 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/128/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "382 N.E.2d 64", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "64 Ill. App. 3d 995", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3333260 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/64/0995-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 N.E.2d 33", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 Ill. App. 3d 821", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5373722 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/21/0821-01" ] }, { "cite": "349 N.E.2d 31", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "34" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5427013 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "540-41" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/63/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "450 N.E.2d 1290", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1294" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 Ill. App. 3d 669", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3557379 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "673-74" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/115/0669-01" ] }, { "cite": "422 N.E.2d 158", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 Ill. App. 3d 936", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 12144259 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/96/0936-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 680, "char_count": 16071, "ocr_confidence": 0.765, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3810882259559908e-07, "percentile": 0.6405220922146426 }, "sha256": "e285ca2646e054a96874974a8b5aef8db7ccbdd627ac5de720efbb49b267f2f8", "simhash": "1:b6e7fdeef93e9ed5", "word_count": 2651 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:36:06.130198+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EARLEAN TYLER, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE LORENZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAfter a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated battery and one count each of armed violence and attempted murder. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, pars. 12 \u2014 4(a), 12 \u2014 4(b)(1), 33A\u2014 2, 8 \u2014 4.) She was sentenced to eight years\u2019 imprisonment for attempted murder and now appeals. She raises the following two issues: (1) whether the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on self-defense; and (2) whether she was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of attempted murder. We reverse and remand for new trial.\nThe State presented the following witnesses. Tanya Steele testified that on July 12, 1985, she was 15 years old. At approximately 10:30 p.m., she was sitting on the steps of a church near her house with her younger brother, Nicholas Steele, and her friend, Monica Campbell. Defendant, her sister, Felicia Tyler, and their friend, Simone Camp, walked past the group on the church steps when defendant and Felicia called Tanya a bitch. Tanya told Nicholas not to say anything, and Monica told Tanya not to say anything. Tanya, Nicholas, and Monica ignored the insult. Defendant stated, \u201cWhat did you say?\u201d Although Tanya, Nicholas, and Monica did not respond, defendant continued making comments until Tanya stated, \u201cLeave me alone. Get out of my face.\u201d Defendant hit Tanya with an open hand in the face. Tanya hit defendant in the face. Tanya then felt a pain or punch in her side and later learned she was stabbed. Monica moved Tanya away from defendant, and Tanya testified that defendant did not come toward her anymore. Tanya testified that she saw a blade, approximately eight inches long, in defendant\u2019s hand during the incident but did not know when she saw it. After Tanya was stabbed, she walked away with Monica and Nicholas, and she was taken to the hospital.\nTanya testified she did not threaten or insult defendant and she was not carrying any weapons. She had known defendant for approximately nine years prior to the incident.\nNicholas\u2019 testimony substantially corroborated Tanya\u2019s testimony with a few additions. Nicholas testified that before defendant stabbed Tanya, defendant stated, \u201cYou can get your sister. I will kill her and anybody else.\u201d He saw defendant take a knife from her purse and stab Tanya. He testified the blade of the knife was approximately four or five inches long. Monica pulled Tanya away as defendant tried to stab Tanya again;\nDr. Rodrigo Floro testified that he examined Tanya in the emergency room of the hospital. She had a stab wound in the lower right abdominal area and she was in shock. The doctor testified she lost a considerable amount of blood and her injury was life-threatening. The doctor performed emergency surgery to save Tanya\u2019s life, and she remained in the hospital for approximately 11 days.\nDefendant\u2019s first witness was her sister, Felicia, who testified that on the evening in question she was walking with defendant and their friend, Simone, when they heard Nicholas and Tanya calling them bitches and whores. Defendant asked Tanya why Nicholas was calling them names and Tanya stated to Nicholas, \u201cDon\u2019t be scared. Tell them why you are calling them names.\u201d A verbal confrontation began, and Tanya stated in a hostile, loud voice, \u201cSo what? Do that mean bitch [sic]?\u201d Felicia asked Tanya why she was \u201cgetting smart.\u201d Tanya punched Felicia on the shoulder and stated, \u201cShut up and stay out of it.\u201d Felicia punched Tanya in the chest. Then Tanya struck defendant and defendant struck her back. As Tanya walked away, she was calling defendant, Felicia, and Simone names and stated, \u201cYou all take your ass home, bitches, because I\u2019m going to get you all back.\u201d\nFelicia did not see a knife in defendant\u2019s hand during the incident, but as they were walking home, she saw defendant throw a knife in some bushes.\nSimone\u2019s testimony substantially corroborated Felicia\u2019s, but Simone also testified that after Tanya hit Felicia, Tanya stated to defendant, \u201cE arlean, what the hell are you going to do?\u201d Tanya then hit defendant. When Tanya started to hit defendant again, defendant hit Tanya. Tanya\u2019s friend pulled her away as Tanya tried to hit defendant again.\nDefendant testified that on the night in question she was 19 years old. She was walking with Felicia and Simone when they heard Tanya and Nicholas calling them bitches and whores. Defendant asked Tanya why she and Nicholas were calling them names. Tanya said, \u201cBitch, so what?\u201d Defendant said, \u201cTanya, I\u2019m just trying to talk to you nicely, and ask you why you\u2019re calling us names.\u201d Tanya said, \u201cGo ahead, Nicholas, tell them what we were saying.\u201d Felicia asked Tanya why she was \u201cgetting smart\u201d with defendant and Tanya punched Felicia. Felicia punched Tanya in return. Tanya then punched defendant in the face and stated, \u201cNo, bitch, what you going to do [sic]?\u201d Defendant hit Tanya back in the face. When Tanya tried to hit defendant again, defendant punched Tanya with an open pocket knife and Monica pulled Tanya back. As defendant walked away, Tanya stated, \u201cI will get you bitches and whores back.\u201d While defendant was walking home after the altercation, she threw the knife in the bushes.\nDefendant indicated that the blade of the knife was two or three inches in length. When asked why she used the knife, defendant testified, \u201cBecause I was afraid, and it was three of them. I didn\u2019t know what she was going to do, which direction she was coming from next.\u201d She thought that she was going to get beaten.\nOn cross-examination, defendant testified she did not know she stabbed Tanya and she also indicated the blade of the knife was 3V2 to 4 inches. Defendant admitted that on the day after the incident, she told an assistant State\u2019s Attorney she was not afraid when she and Tanya punched each other. She also testified she was not afraid of Tanya, Monica, or Nicholas.\nOn redirect, she testified she voluntarily went to the police station the day after the incident and spoke with the police and an assistant State\u2019s Attorney. She told the assistant State\u2019s Attorney she was not \u201creal afraid\u201d of Tanya. Defendant testified she was not afraid at the time of the incident. When asked why she threw the knife away, she answered, \u201cBecause I was afraid at the time when I had the knife.\u201d\nOn recross, defendant admitted she knew she stabbed Tanya in the stomach at the time of the incident.\nThe State called Monica Campbell as a rebuttal witness who testified that before Tanya was stabbed, defendant stated, \u201cI\u2019ll get your sister and you and whoever.\u201d Defendant hit Tanya in the face, and Tanya hit her back in the face. Monica saw defendant move toward Tanya with her hand and Monica pulled Tanya away. Monica testified she did not see Tanya and Felicia hit each other that day.\nSimone Camp testified in surrebuttal that she did not hear defendant say, \u201cI will get you and your family at all cost.\u201d\nBoth sides rested, and the judge held a jury instruction conference with the assistant State\u2019s Attorney and defendant\u2019s counsel. Defendant\u2019s counsel stated, \u201cI haven\u2019t had a chance, although I know most of the instructions are pulled by the prosecution, but I haven\u2019t had a chance to look at any instructions yet.\u201d After a discussion of the State\u2019s instructions, defendant\u2019s counsel stated, \u201cWell, I thought they were going to pull all the instructions. I didn\u2019t see any self-defense instruction.\u201d They discussed whether there was any evidence presented concerning self-defense. The next day after argument on the issue, the judge denied defendant\u2019s request for a self-defense jury instruction stating, \u201cThere has never been one utterance by her that, at the time she stabbed the victim, she was afraid.\u201d\nThe jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty of two counts of aggravated battery and one count each of armed violence and attempted murder. Defendant now appeals.\nOpinion\nDefendant argues that the trial court erred when it denied her request for a self-defense jury instruction. The trial court denied the request, finding that defendant did not present sufficient evidence to justify the instruction.\nAlthough the State did not raise the issue, the record in this case does not indicate that defendant tendered a self-defense jury instruction to the trial court. At the jury instruction conference, defendant\u2019s counsel admitted he had not prepared any instructions, and there is no statement in the transcript of proceedings that defendant tendered \u25a0 a self-defense instruction. Although jury instructions were included in the record on appeal, a proposed self-defense instruction was not included in the record.\nSupreme Court Rule 366(b)(2)(i) provides that a party cannot raise on appeal the failure to tender a certain jury instruction unless that party tendered the instruction at the trial court level. (107 Ill. 2d R. 366(b)(2)(i).) Failure to tender an instruction can result in waiver of that issue on appeal. People v. Brophy (1981), 96 Ill. App. 3d 936, 422 N.E.2d 158.\nIn Brophy, the record indicated that defendant\u2019s counsel objected several times to the form of self-defense instructions at the trial court level and defendant also raised the issue in his post-trial motion. However, the record did not indicate that defendant tendered proposed instructions to the trial court. The appellate court found that defendant clearly raised the issue at the trial court level and, therefore, it would be unfair to invoke the waiver rule.\nSimilarly here, the record discloses that defendant orally requested a self-defense instruction and that the parties argued the issue before the judge. Defendant again raised the issue in his post-trial motion. Although defendant\u2019s failure to tender a self-defense jury instruction to the trial court risked waiving the issue on appeal, we believe that under the circumstances of this case the court was adequately apprised of defendant\u2019s objection. We will, therefore, consider the issue of whether the trial court properly denied defendant\u2019s request for a self-defense jury instruction.\nSection 7 \u2014 1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 provides the circumstances under which a person may use self-defense:\n\u201cA 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 defend himself or another against such other\u2019s imminent use of unlawful force. However, 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 imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 7 \u2014 1.)\nA defendant must affirmatively raise the issue of self-defense (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 7 \u2014 14) by presenting evidence \u201cthat unlawful force was threatened against the defendant; that the danger of harm was imminent; that defendant was not the aggressor; that defendant actually believed that danger existed and that the kind and amount of force used was necessary to avert that danger; and that defendant\u2019s beliefs were reasonable.\u201d (People v. Zolidis (1983), 115 Ill. App. 3d 669, 673-74, 450 N.E.2d 1290, 1294.) \u201c[Vjery slight evidence\u201d presented on the issue will justify instructing the jury on self-defense; however, jury instructions are not required on issues which' are \u201cwholly unrelated to the case but are based upon the merest factual reference or witness\u2019s comment.\u201d (See People v. Bratcher (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 534, 540-41, 349 N.E.2d 31, 34.) Even when conflicting evidence is presented on the issue of self-defense, a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the issue because the credibility of witnesses is for the jury to determine. People v. Dowdy (1974), 21 Ill. App. 3d 821, 316 N.E.2d 33.\nIn the present case, defendant presented evidence that Tanya instigated the confrontation when she repeatedly shouted insults at defendant, Felicia, and Simone. Also, Tanya struck both defendant and Felicia first. When Tanya attempted to strike defendant a second time, defendant pulled out a pocket knife and stabbed Tanya. When asked why she used the knife, defendant testified, \u201cBecause I was afraid, and it was three of them. I didn\u2019t know what she was going to do, which direction she was coming from next.\u201d She also testified she was afraid at the time she had the knife. Defendant testified she thought that she was going to get beaten. Although on further questioning defendant testified she was not afraid of Tanya or afraid at the time, any conflict in defendant\u2019s testimony must be resolved by the jury. The evidence presented satisfies the very slight evidence standard, and therefore, the jury should have been instructed on the issue of self-defense.\nThe State argues that defendant\u2019s act of stabbing Tanya was a \u2018\u2018disproportionate response\u201d to Tanya\u2019s actions and establishes that defendant was not acting in self-defense. However, the reasonableness of defendant\u2019s use of force and the amount of force used are questions of fact that must be resolved by the jury. People v. Conwell (1978), 64 Ill. App. 3d 995, 382 N.E.2d 64.\nDefendant also argues she was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of attempted murder because there was insufficient evidence presented that she intended to kill Tanya.\nWhen a defendant claims he was convicted with insufficient evidence, the evidence must be reviewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution and the court must determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found defendant guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Young (1989), 128 Ill. 2d 1, 538 N.E.2d 461.) A reviewing court will not reverse a criminal conviction unless the evidence presented was so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to raise a reasonable doubt of defendant\u2019s guilt. Young, 128 Ill. 2d1, 538 N.E.2d 461.\nA person commits the crime of attempt when with the intent to commit a specific offense, in this case murder, he performs any act which is a substantial step toward the commission of the offense. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 8 \u2014 4.) To support a conviction for attempted murder, the State must prove that the defendant intended to kill his victim. (People v. Harris (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 16, 377 N.E.2d 28.) The specific intent to kill may be inferred from the circumstances, such as the character of the assault and the use of a deadly weapon. People v. Treadway (1985), 138 Ill. App. 3d 899, 486 N.E.2d 929.\nIn the present case, the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, establishes that defendant told Tanya that she would kill Tanya and \u201canybody else.\u201d After a verbal altercation, Tanya hit defendant. Defendant responded by stabbing Tanya with a pocket knife. There was testimony that defendant attempted to stab Tanya a second time but Monica pulled Tanya away. Also, there was testimony that the blade of the knife was between two inches and eight inches in length. The doctor who treated Tanya testified that Tanya\u2019s injury was life-threatening and required emergency surgery. The State, therefore, presented sufficient evidence that defendant possessed the requisite intent to kill and defendant was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of attempted murder. Our determination removes the risk of subjecting defendant to double jeopardy when she is tried again. People v. Littlejohn (1986), 144 Ill. App. 3d 813, 494 N.E.2d 677.\nReversed and remanded.\nMURRAY, P.J., and COCCIA, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE LORENZ" } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael J. Pelletier and Martin Carlson, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, and Chapman & Cutler, both of Chicago (Susan Mullane, of counsel), for appellant.", "Cecil A. Partee, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Inge Fryklund, Gael O\u2019Brien, and Janet C. Mahoney, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EARLEAN TYLER, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 1 \u2014 87\u20141151\nOpinion filed September 8, 1989.\nMichael J. Pelletier and Martin Carlson, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, and Chapman & Cutler, both of Chicago (Susan Mullane, of counsel), for appellant.\nCecil A. Partee, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Inge Fryklund, Gael O\u2019Brien, and Janet C. Mahoney, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0547-01", "first_page_order": 569, "last_page_order": 576 }