{
  "id": 2528196,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES WALTERS, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Walters",
  "decision_date": "1991-03-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 4\u201490\u20140464",
  "first_page": "102",
  "last_page": "105",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 3d 102"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "507 N.E.2d 962",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "966"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 Ill. App. 3d 116",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3465924
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "122"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/155/0116-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "374 N.E.2d 1114",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1116"
        },
        {
          "page": "1116"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 3d 924",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5628402
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "927"
        },
        {
          "page": "927"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/58/0924-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "394 N.E.2d 1329",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1336"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Ill. App. 3d 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3281381
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "379"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/76/0371-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "443 N.E.2d 252",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "259"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 Ill. App. 3d 893",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2997185
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "903"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/110/0893-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "554 N.E.2d 1117",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 Ill. App. 3d 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2491735
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/196/0264-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "542 N.E.2d 515",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 Ill. App. 3d 399",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2657954
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/186/0399-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 463,
    "char_count": 6166,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.727,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08,
      "percentile": 0.33221608672938074
    },
    "sha256": "1beaaafe94b8ff9d277a669be08528d103f6aa15a00067482f827e19fda8bc51",
    "simhash": "1:3858fbb27b44295d",
    "word_count": 1064
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:56:54.383547+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. JAMES WALTERS, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn May 3, 1990, defendant, James Walters, was charged by indictment with aggravated battery of a child (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 12\u20144.3(a)) and battery (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 12\u20143(a)(1)). After a jury trial on May 14, 1990, defendant was acquitted of aggravated battery of a child, convicted of battery, and sentenced to 364 days in jail. Defendant\u2019s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court improperly refused an instruction he requested. We affirm.\nAt trial, the State called two witnesses to testify: the victim, J.W., who is defendant\u2019s son, and Sandra Walters, defendant\u2019s wife and J.W.\u2019s mother. Defendant presented no evidence.\nThe State\u2019s evidence showed that in January 1990, J.W. was eight years old, four feet tall, and weighed about 70 pounds. J.W. was a nervous child who had a problem with bed-wetting. Three days before the incident in question, which occurred in late January 1990, J.W. had wet his bed. Sandra had heard defendant previously threaten J.W. about bed-wetting, so she washed the sheets and cleaned the mattress as best she could to get rid of any evidence of bed-wetting.\nOn the date in question, defendant walked into J.W.\u2019s bedroom, and placed his face onto J.W.\u2019s mattress. Defendant said that he smelled urine. Defendant then struck J.W. and went out to the garage. He returned shortly with a stick. Defendant then made J.W. bend over and touch his toes while defendant struck him repeatedly on his buttocks. J.W. kept falling forward because of the force defendant was using, and defendant would pick him up and tell him \u201cto stand there and take it like a man.\u201d Defendant told J.W. that he \u201cwas going to make his ass as black as his pants.\u201d Defendant also said that if he had \u201cto beat [J.W.] to death,\u201d J.W. \u201cwould learn to stop wetting the bed one way or another.\u201d\nDefendant struck J.W. at least 20 or 30 times. Sandra tried to pull defendant off J.W., but he pinned J.W. to the ground and told Sandra that if she did not leave him alone, he was \u201cgoing to break the little bastard\u2019s neck.\u201d The stick defendant was using was about two inches wide, half an inch thick, and about a foot or two long. The incident finally ended when defendant picked J.W. up and threw him to the ground two or three times. Defendant then told J.W. to go to his room and stay there.\nA few hours later, Sandra observed the area of J.W.\u2019s buttocks and saw that it was \u201ctotally black and dark blue.\u201d She described that area as one which was \u201cbasically covered by the underwear.\u201d J.W. testified that the area of his buttocks hurt for about three to four weeks after this incident.\nDefendant\u2019s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred when it denied defendant\u2019s request to give the jury an instruction that is not contained in the Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal (2d ed. 1981) (IPI). The refused instruction reads as follows: \u201cParents have a legal right to spank their children.\u201d Defendant argues that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial because the trial court refused to instruct the jury concerning the legal justification of spanking. Citing People v. Swartz (1989), 186 Ill. App. 3d 399, 542 N.E.2d 515, and People v. Crane (1990), 196 Ill. App. 3d 264, 554 N.E.2d 1117, defendant argues that the trial court committed reversible error by depriving him of the opportunity to explain to the jury his theory that he was legally justified in spanking his son. We disagree and find those cases to be inapposite.\nIn People v. Sanchez (1982), 110 Ill. App. 3d 893, 903, 443 N.E.2d 252, 259, the court wrote the following: \u201cIn the absence of an IPI criminal instruction, the decision whether to give a non-IPI instruction rests within the discretion of the trial judge.\u201d (See also People v. Blackwell (1979), 76 Ill. App. 3d 371, 379, 394 N.E.2d 1329, 1336.) In People v. Pankey (1978), 58 Ill. App. 3d 924, 927, 374 N.E.2d 1114, 1116, this court wrote the following: \u201cAny non-IPI instruction given by the trial court is to be simple, brief, impartial, and free from argument. (Supreme Court Rule 451(a).)\u201d See 134 Ill. 2d R. 451(a).\nJudged by the foregoing standards, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing defendant\u2019s instruction. The court stated that it found objectionable the use of the word \u201cspank\u201d in the instruction. The court also stated its agreement \u201cwith many of the reasons given by the State\u201d for its objections, which the prosecutor stated as follows:\n\u201cThis instruction doesn\u2019t answer, for example, what a parent can spank with, how long, what injuries, if any. It doesn\u2019t specify any of that. And so I don\u2019t think parents have a blanket legal right to spank their children as this instruction indicates. There is a line where you cross from legality into criminality, and that\u2019s exactly what this case is about. So I think that, again, coming from the court, an instruction like this is not appropriate.\u201d\nWe approve of the trial court\u2019s ruling sustaining the State\u2019s objection for the reasons given, and we reaffirm an earlier holding of this court that even a jury instruction that accurately states the law may be refused if it is misleading or argumentative. See In re Estate of Casey (1987), 155 Ill. App. 3d 116,122, 507 N.E.2d 962, 966.\nBased upon our review of the record, we are satisfied that the instructions given, taken as a whole, fully and fairly defined the applicable law and were sufficient. Further, while the refused instruction may have been \u201csimple\u201d and \u201cbrief,\u201d it was not \u201cimpartial and free from argument,\u201d as required by Pankey (58 Ill. App. 3d at 927, 374 N.E.2d at 1116).\nAffirmed.\nSPITZ and GREEN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel D. Yuhas and Gloria Ann Morris, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Thomas J. Difanis, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Timothy J. Londrigan, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES WALTERS, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201490\u20140464\nOpinion filed March 28, 1991.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and Gloria Ann Morris, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nThomas J. Difanis, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Timothy J. Londrigan, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0102-01",
  "first_page_order": 124,
  "last_page_order": 127
}