{ "id": 5796922, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SONDRA BANKS, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Banks", "decision_date": "1992-03-13", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201488\u20140628", "first_page": "462", "last_page": "475", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "227 Ill. App. 3d 462" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "252 N.E.2d 764", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 Ill. App. 2d 332", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1588386 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/115/0332-01" ] }, { "cite": "406 N.E.2d 123", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 707", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3206829 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/84/0707-01" ] }, { "cite": "490 N.E.2d 1334", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 Ill. App. 3d 1090", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3497610 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/141/1090-01" ] }, { "cite": "345 N.E.2d 480", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 105", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5428306 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/63/0105-01" ] }, { "cite": "323 N.E.2d 485", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 Ill. App. 3d 411", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2704017 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "419" }, { "page": "419", "parenthetical": "on appeal, defendant argued that she acted under a sudden and intense passion, while at trial she argued that in self-defense, she struggled over a gun, which then accidentally discharged, killing two people" }, { "page": "419", "parenthetical": "eight eyewitnesses to shooting" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/25/0411-01" ] }, { "cite": "314 N.E.2d 324", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "20 Ill. App. 3d 911", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5343980 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/20/0911-01" ] }, { "cite": "543 N.E.2d 875", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "187 Ill. App. 3d 860", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2665061 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/187/0860-01" ] }, { "cite": "415 N.E.2d 678", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 Ill. App. 3d 673", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3147143 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/91/0673-01" ] }, { "cite": "522 N.E.2d 903", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "168 Ill. App. 3d 618", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3512124 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/168/0618-01" ] }, { "cite": "538 N.E.2d 461", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "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": "571 N.E.2d 1041", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 Ill. App. 3d 984", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2600193 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/212/0984-01" ] }, { "cite": "574 N.E.2d 806", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "214 Ill. App. 3d 1051", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5298382 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/214/1051-01" ] }, { "cite": "576 N.E.2d 1020", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "216 Ill. App. 3d 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5290201 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/216/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "578 N.E.2d 1090", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 Ill. App. 3d 764", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 8499304 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/218/0764-01" ] }, { "cite": "579 N.E.2d 583", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 Ill. App. 3d 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5800666 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/219/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "583 N.E.2d 64", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "221 Ill. App. 3d 1023", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5797317 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/221/1023-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1081, "char_count": 34430, "ocr_confidence": 0.768, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.781993236385318e-08, "percentile": 0.45657391608545517 }, "sha256": "fbe138644546942171cff91e161d26bfd57b26b15a08c9c736218fd5dc357be2", "simhash": "1:7dd659fcbf3c2f47", "word_count": 5884 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:10:11.260403+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. SONDRA BANKS, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE GORDON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nA jury found defendant Sondra Banks guilty of one count of first degree murder and two counts of attempted murder. The court sentenced defendant to 25 years\u2019 imprisonment for murder, and two terms of 12 years\u2019 imprisonment for the two attempted murder counts, with the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, defendant contends that the Illinois murder statute is unconstitutional and that the first degree murder conviction should be reduced to second degree murder because she acted \u201cunder a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 9-2.\nOn August 29, 1987, during an argument at a block party, 36-year-old Juliette Clayborn was shot and killed. Juliette\u2019s brother and sister, Julius Clayborn and Veronica Grover, were shot and wounded. Defendant was also shot, although not by any of the three victims. She suffered a flesh wound entering her back and exiting her chest. She also had a laceration on her head and a bruised wrist.\nKerwana Clayborn, the 19-year-old niece of the three victims, testified for the State that on August 29, 1987, at about 5 p.m., she was at a restaurant with her 14-year-old cousin, a 14-year-old friend named Lonya Sylvester, and Juliette\u2019s 17-year-old daughter Elvira Clayborn, when she saw two of defendant\u2019s nieces, 14-year-old Kenya and her twin sister Kelly. Kenya and Kelly argued verbally with Lonya.\nLater, at 9 p.m., Kerwana saw Kelly and Kenya again, in front of the home of Kerwana\u2019s grandmother, Elvira Grover (hereinafter Mrs. Grover), during the block party. Defendant lived in a \u201ccourtway\u201d building across the street but farther down the block. Lonya and the twins argued verbally again. The twins then left.\nAt about 11:30 p.m., Kerwana saw defendant and the twins down the block talking with Juliette, Lonya, and LaTonya Woodard. Mrs. Grover went over to the group of six people. Approximately 20 or more people gathered, including some people who had come out of defendant\u2019s building. Kerwana walked over to the group and stood about 10 feet from Juliette and defendant.\nKerwana testified further that defendant asked Juliette why she had interfered in the argument between defendant\u2019s nieces and Juliette\u2019s nieces. Defendant also stated, \u201cI\u2019m Sondra B. You must [sic] don\u2019t know who I am. You better read up on me.\u201d Juliette tried to move away from defendant. Mrs. Grover stood between Juliette and defendant, encouraging Juliette to return to the house. Julius also stood near them. Kerwana did not see any weapons. As the argument continued, defendant \u201ckind of moved my grandmother [Mrs. Grover] to the side or tried, and then she pushed Juliette.\u201d Juliette was moved backwards by the push.\nKerwana saw Veronica, who stood behind defendant, then hit defendant on the right side of the face with her fist. At that point, \u201ceverybody got into a big crowd,\u201d and they began \u201ctussling\u201d with and pushing each other. \u201cEverybody was talking at the same time.\u201d Kerwana did not see defendant walk over to a car and return. \u201cNext thing I know *** I heard [two] gunshots ***.\u201d Kerwana began running away, and within seconds she heard two more shots. Kerwana could not see who had the gun. She did observe, however, that Juliette had no weapon in her hands. She looked back and saw Juliette hold her stomach and fall to the ground.\nAt the hospital, Kerwana learned that Juliette died from an abdominal gunshot wound. Juliette\u2019s brother, Julius, who was on crutches with a cast on one leg, was shot in the other leg. Juliette\u2019s sister, Veronica, was shot in the arm.\nElvira Clayborn, Juliette\u2019s 17-year-old daughter, testified for the State. She testified similarly to Kerwana regarding the 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. encounters with the twins.\nAt about 11:30 p.m., Elvira was in front of her grandmother\u2019s home when she saw defendant and the twins cross the street and approach Juliette, Lonya and LaTonya, who were walking to a friend\u2019s house to get diapers. While walking back from the friend\u2019s house, defendant and the twins \u201ccrossed the street again, and that\u2019s when I went down the street, and they stopped my mother,\u201d LaTonya, and Lonya, who held a baby. One of the twins pushed Lonya. Juliette urged defendant not to get involved in \u201ckids\u2019 stuff,\u201d i.e., the argument between defendant\u2019s nieces and Juliette\u2019s nieces.\nElvira heard defendant say, \u201cI\u2019m Sondra B. You don\u2019t know me. You better ask somebody. I\u2019ll kill somebody around here.\u201d Defendant kept repeating, \u201cI\u2019ll kill somebody around here.\u201d Juliette tried to \u201cgo home. But [defendant] kept getting in my mother\u2019s face pushing her and kept arguing with my grandmother.\u201d Defendant pushed Mrs. Grover \u201cout of the way\u201d and pushed Juliette two or three times. Defendant told Mrs. Grover to \u201cget out of the way [bejfore somebody get [sic] killed.\u201d\nThere were about 25 people present, some of whom were defendant\u2019s family or friends, and some of whom were Juliette\u2019s family or friends. Juliette did not have a weapon. Elvira did not see anybody in her family with weapons. At no time did she see her mother raise her hands, even when defendant pushed her.\nElvira saw Veronica punch defendant on the side of the face. Defendant then \u201cducked like, like tried to weave it out, and then went over to the car.\u201d Elvira stood about 10 feet away from the car. A man, whom Elvira had seen before but did not know his name, was standing next to the car and handed defendant something. \u201cI don\u2019t know what she got, but some man put something in her hand, and that\u2019s when I heard the shots.\u201d\nElvira heard two shots, then looked over and saw defendant holding a gun, aiming it at Juliette. Elvira looked at defendant and heard defendant say to Juliette: \u201cNow, bitch, you gon\u2019 die.\u201d Elvira watched as defendant fired a third shot directly at Juliette, hitting her in the stomach. Juliette fell to the ground. Elvira then heard more shooting from the courtway building across the street.\nJulius Clayborn, Juliette\u2019s 35-year-old brother, testified for the State that on August 29, 1987, at 11:30 p.m., he was at his mother\u2019s home. At the time, he had a broken knee and wore a cast on one leg and could walk only with crutches. He saw his sister Juliette walking down the street with Lonya, LaTonya and the baby, going to a friend\u2019s house. Defendant and the twins crossed the street and approached Juliette. Julius heard them arguing, and he went down the block and stood next to his sister.\nJulius heard defendant ask what Juliette \u201chad to with the argument,\u201d and Juliette replied, \u201cThis is kids\u2019 arguments, *** so grownups have no business getting off into it.\u201d Defendant replied, \u201cBitch, don\u2019t you know me.\u201d Defendant began shoving Juliette. Julius and another man \u201cbroke them up.\u201d Defendant went \u201cback across the street,\u201d and Juliette \u201ccontinued down the street\u201d to her friend\u2019s house.\nSoon Julius saw Juliette, LaTonya, Lonya and the baby returning. Defendant and the twins again \u201ccame across the street, and one of them hit Lonya when she was carrying the baby.\u201d Julius again walked down the street, along with his mother, Mrs. Grover. Defendant was pushing and shoving Juliette, saying: \u201cI\u2019m Sondra B. I\u2019m Miss B. Bitch, don\u2019t you know me?\u201d Juliette replied: \u201cI don\u2019t feel like fighting, Sondra, because this is kids\u2019 arguments. We grown-ups don\u2019t have no business fighting about kids\u2019 arguments.\u201d Julius tried to step in between them, but defendant \u201cwouldn\u2019t let me. She moved me.\u201d Mrs. Grover tried to intercede, but defendant \u201cnudged\u201d Mrs. Grover, pushing her off to the side, and \u201cshoved [Juliette] again.\u201d \u201cEverytime we pulled my sister back, [defendant] kept approaching her getting up in her face.\u201d\nJulius then saw Veronica hit defendant in the face. Defendant then \u201cfaded back out [of] the crowd,\u201d and went over to a car where four or five men were standing. The 20 or 25 people in the crowd were shoving and pushing each other. Julius saw one of the twins \u201cgrab a pipe and attempt to swing at my sister\u201d Veronica. Julius, leaning on his crutches, was able to take the pipe away from the twin. Julius looked over at defendant, who stood at the car about 10 feet away, and Julius had a clear, unobstructed view of defendant. \u201cAt that instant I seen Sondra grabbed a pistol from somebody\u2019s hands.\u201d\nDefendant then fired the gun at Julius, striking his left thigh with the first shot. She next aimed at Veronica, shooting her in the arm. Defendant then walked towards Juliette, saying, \u201cBitch, I told you there would be dead bodies out here tonight.\u201d Julius saw defendant shoot Juliette in the stomach. He then saw her fire a fourth shot \u201c[i]nto the crowd.\u201d As defendant ran from the scene, Julius heard further gunshots from the courtway building across the street. Julius never saw any weapons in the hands of his family members. Julius also testified that Juliette was blind in one eye and she had vision problems with the other eye.\nJulius had pled guilty, five years earlier, to a misdemeanor theft charge.\nLouis Clayborn, Juliette\u2019s 15-year-old son, testified for the State that on August 29, 1987, he was at his grandmother\u2019s home. Louis saw Juliette talking with defendant and the twins. Louis walked over to them. Defendant was \u201carguing at my mother and pushing her, shoving her.\u201d Defendant was also shoving Mrs. Grover. \u201cI was walking around, like, and I was fixing to hit her and my mother said no.\u201d Juliette told Louis: \u201cNo. Don\u2019t do nothing. Don\u2019t hit her. We fixing to go home.\u201d Then he heard three shots. Louis was standing next to Veronica when she was shot. \u201cBefore I got a chance to run, I saw [defendant] with a gun cursing ***.\u201d Defendant said: \u201cM\u2014 f-\u2014 going to die tonight. Told y\u2019all somebody going to be laying out here dead. It\u2019s going to be some dead bodies.\u201d Defendant then walked towards Juliette and shot her. Defendant then ran towards the car \u201cand somebody pulled her down. *** And then she started running towards the courtway and I ran after her.\u201d At that point, Louis heard additional shots fired while defendant was running toward the courtway building.\nElvira Grover, the mother of the three victims, testified for the State that on August 29, 1987, she saw Juliette, Lonya and LaTonya walking home when defendant and the twins crossed the street and approached them. Mrs. Grover heard arguing and she ran over to Juliette. A crowd started to gather. Mrs. Grover urged defendant not to argue.\n\u201c[Defendant] was calling my daughter a lot of bitches and whores and telling her \u2018You going to whip this bad ass tonight or I\u2019m going to whip yours.\u2019 My daughter said, \u2018I\u2019ll be whatever you call me, but I\u2019m not going to fight about no kidstuff [sic] because it don\u2019t make sense.\u2019 She said the argument was over. [Defendant] start[ed] throwing her coat off and said, \u2018You\u2019re going to whip this bad ass today.\u2019 So my daughter said no. I caught her by the arm, and I said, \u2018Come on Juliette and let\u2019s go home.\u2019 \u201d\nMrs. Grover moved between defendant and Juliette. \u201c[Defendant] told me to get out of her m\u2014 f-\u2014 face and she pushed me back.\u201d Defendant continued pushing Juliette. \u201cJuliette tried to go home, but [defendant] would get between myself and Juliette to keep her from going. She would step around in front of her so she couldn\u2019t pass by.\u201d Defendant kept \u201cjumping around past me in front of my daughter\u2019s face telling me, \u2018No. She gon\u2019 fight tonight.\u2019 \u201d\nDefendant then \u201cwent into the crowd.\u201d \u201cThe next thing I saw, I saw [defendant] come out of the crowd and back up beside of a car. At that time I saw someone put a gun in her hand.\u201d Mrs. Grover heard two shots fired. \u201cThen [defendant] stepped up one step toward my daughter and myself. She said, \u2018Now, m\u2014 f- \u2014 .\u2019 My daughter said, \u2018Now, m\u2014 f- \u2014 , what?\u2019 [Defendant] said, \u2018It\u2019s going to be some dead bodies out here tonight.\u2019 \u201d Defendant then shot Juliette in the stomach. Mrs. Grover heard or felt a bullet go past her as she bent over to help Juliette.\nVeronica Grover, Juliette\u2019s 23-year-old sister, testified for the State that on August 29, 1987, at about 11:30 p.m., she saw a crowd of people around Juliette and defendant, who were arguing. Defendant kept telling Juliette \u201cthat she is going to fight her, going to make her fight her tonight.\u201d Juliette tried to walk away, but defendant \u201cgrabbed her and said, \u2018Don\u2019t walk away from me, bitch. I\u2019m going to make you fight me tonight.\u2019 \u201d\nDefendant pushed Mrs. Grover twice, calling her a bitch, and pushed Juliette four or five times. Veronica then reached past her mother and struck defendant in the side of the face with her hand. Defendant swung back at Veronica, but she missed. \u201cThen [defendant] bit down and went through the crowd to her car where men were standing. *** I seen a man. I don\u2019t know his name or who he was.\u201d The man, \u201cwho was leaning against the car opened up his black leather jacket, opened it up and handed [defendant] the gun and she reached for it.\u201d Defendant grabbed the gun, \u201ccame up with it like this and said, \u2018Bitch, is going to be a lot of dead bodies lying out here tonight.\u2019 \u201d Defendant fired twice, striking Veronica once and Julius once. Defendant turned toward Juliette and said, \u201c \u2018Bitch, I told you there was going to be some dead bodies lying out here tonight,\u2019 \u201d Juliette said, \u201cNo way,\u201d and then defendant shot Juliette in the stomach. Juliette at no time had a weapon. No one had a gun other than defendant.\nOfficer Charles Popielarz testified for the State that on August 29, 1987, he and his partner investigated the shootings. They were unable to locate a weapon. At about 1:30 a.m., they learned that defendant had been arrested leaving the hospital. At about 2:30 a.m., they brought defendant back to the hospital when she requested medical treatment for an injury to her head and one hand.\nThe parties stipulated that hospital personnel would testify that on August 30, 1987, at 12 p.m., Juliette was admitted with a gunshot wound in the abdomen. She was pronounced dead at 1:19 a.m. The hospital personnel would also testify that Julius was shot in the left thigh and was admitted to the hospital. On August 31, 1987, he underwent surgery to remove the bullet. The hospital personnel would testify further that Veronica was admitted and treated for a gunshot wound in the right forearm.\nThe hospital personnel would testify further that defendant entered the hospital in the early morning hours of August 30, 1987, giving the name of Dionne Banks and asking for treatment. Thereafter, she left the hospital without accepting treatment. She was then arrested. Later she was brought back by the police for treatment for a laceration on the back of her head, a bruised left wrist, and a \u201cthrough-and-through gunshot wound *** with the entry on the right side of the back, *** and exit wound on the right side of the chest.\u201d\nThe parties also stipulated that the medical examiner would testify that the cause of Juliette\u2019s death was a gunshot wound to the abdomen and that a blood analysis showed no signs of alcohol.\nOfficer Jack Wilkins testified for the State that at the scene the police recovered an expended .38 cartridge. No weapon was recovered. Wilkins spoke with a man named Jerry Cunningham, who stated that he saw defendant shoot the victims. Wilkins later arrested defendant. The gunshot wound to defendant was such that it indicated she had been shot from behind.\nWilkins testified further that defendant gave the police five different versions of the incident. First, defendant said \u201cthat she had shot at the individual because they [the three victims] all had guns.\u201d Second, defendant said \u201cthat she had been arguing with a person and that they had all jumped on her and taken her gun away from her and shot her with it and she returned fire because of that.\u201d Third, defendant said that a \u201cthird party [not one of the victims] had been out on the street arguing and that she refused to identify that person. The victim\u2019s friend had taken the gun from him and shot her and that as she was running away she had produced her own gun and fired and she was returning [fire] over her shoulder.\u201d Fourth, defendant stated that she argued with a woman \u201cand that someone had struck her and that at that time she pulled the revolver from her pants pocket which she said she always carried and she shot that person and that she fired a gun subsequently in the direction of a person on crutches.\u201d Fifth, defendant gave a statement to an assistant State\u2019s Attorney, but then refused to sign it.\nLinis Kelecius, an assistant State\u2019s Attorney, testified for the State that on August 30, 1987, he took a statement from defendant. Defendant gave him several versions of the shooting incident. The final version was that she argued with Juliette, and then someone hit her on the back of the head and pulled her hair. Defendant then \u201cwent into her pocket and pulled out a gun that she had with her all along, and after she pulled out her gun, [defendant] said that, that she saw a light-skinned Black man pull out a gun. After the light-skinned Black man pulled out the gun, he shot the gun at [defendant].\u201d Defendant shot back at the man, but hit Juliette by mistake. Juliette had no weapons. Defendant fired another shot at the light-skinned black man, hitting him, and then began running. She then ran away and threw her gun down a garbage chute. After reducing the statement to writing, the assistant State\u2019s Attorney asked defendant to sign it, but she refused to read it or sign it.\nNineteen-year-old LaTonya Wood testified for the defense that she was present at the shooting. She walked down the street with Juliette and her 13-year-old sister Lonya, who carried LaTonya\u2019s four-month-old baby. Defendant and the twins crossed the street and approached them. Defendant and Juliette argued. Juliette said she did not want to get involved in kids\u2019 business. Defendant kept pushing Juliette. Juliette \u201cwasn\u2019t really arguing or nothing like that. She really didn\u2019t even want to fight that night.\u201d Mrs. Grover tried to intervene.\nLaTonya then saw Veronica hit defendant in the face. Defendant tried to strike back. LaTonya also struck defendant. \u201cI was helping Veronica fight Sondra.\u201d LaTonya then saw defendant go over to a car. \u201cThen she got a gun and then she started shooting.\u201d LaTonya saw Robert, one of Mrs. Grover\u2019s sons, throw defendant on the ground. LaTonya saw defendant shoot Veronica, who stood next to LaTonya.\nLaTonya also testified that \u201c[s]omebody gave Mrs. Grover a gun.\u201d LaTonya never saw the gun, however. She merely \u201cheard [Mrs. Grover] tell one of her sons to go get it\u201d before the fight began. La-Tonya testified on cross-examination that it was Robert who left to get the gun. She had lied when she testified on direct examination that she did not know which son left to get the gun. LaTonya had never told the assistant State\u2019s Attorney about a second gun. She had, however, previously told defense counsel about the second gun. She never saw a second gun, but there was one. \u201cBecause I know. *** I didn\u2019t have to see it, but I know another gun [was] out there.\u201d\nLaTonya had previously been convicted of arson and placed on one year\u2019s probation.\nJerry Cunningham testified for the defense that on August 29, 1987, he lived in the same building as defendant. He walked over to where defendant stood arguing with Juliette. Juliette left, but later returned with \u201cat least 14 people behind.\u201d They started arguing again. Julius and Mrs. Grover were also present. Mrs. Grover tried to intervene, urging defendant not to fight about \u201ckids\u2019 stuff.\u201d Julius told defendant \u201cto get out of his mother\u2019s face.\u201d Cunningham stepped in between defendant and Mrs. Grover and Juliette. Cunningham pushed defendant, telling defendant that she was being \u201cdisrespectful\u201d to Mrs. Grover. Then Veronica reached over Cunningham and hit defendant. Defendant, however, did not strike Juliette. \u201cShe couldn\u2019t because I was between them.\u201d A \u201cyoung stud about 14, 15\u201d hit defendant with the jack. \u201c[T]hat\u2019s when I started hearing the shot [sic].\u201d There were \u201cshots coming from both sides.\u201d He did not see which way defendant went. He never saw defendant with a gun. He did not see defendant shoot anybody. \u201cShe couldn\u2019t have because I was in the middle.\u201d\nOn cross-examination, Cunningham testified that defendant was a good friend of his. Cunningham admitted telling the police that defendant had reported to him that she had hidden the gun. \u201cRight, because they asked me to do it because they tried to hook me up, involve me in this murder.\u201d Therefore, he lied to the police. \u201cYes, I lied to them. I told them I know where the gun\u2019s at. I was trying to get me out of the police station so I could break and run on them.\u201d\nCunningham testified that he was on parole for attempted murder and armed robbery. At the time of trial, however, he was in custody and on parole hold because of a pending aggravated battery charge.\nDefendant, who was 24 years old, testified that on the night of August 29, 1987, she was shot in the side, her arm was fractured, and her head was \u201cbusted\u201d and required stitches.\nDuring the argument with Juliette, Veronica reached over Mrs. Grover and hit defendant on the side of her face. Louis, Juliette\u2019s 15-year-old son, hit defendant in the back of the head with something hard, like steel. She did not remember whether or not LaTonya struck her.\nDefendant testified further that, at some point, Robert (Juliette\u2019s brother) shot defendant. She never told the police that Robert had shot her because \u201cI didn\u2019t know his name at the time.\u201d She learned his name when someone visited her in jail. When Robert shot her, she was turned sideways, and he was not behind her, notwithstanding the fact that the bullet\u2019s entry wound was in her back.\nShe tried to fight her way out of the crowd, but she did not run to a car. \u201cAs I sat there and I seen the blood coming from my head, I said a couple of things to one of the Clayborns, and as I turned around, a guy handed me a gun. I did not run to no car.\u201d When she turned around, a young man said, \u201cHon, Sondra, this is what\u2019s happening,\u201d and he handed her a gun. She did not recall who the man was or whether he was a friend of hers.\nDefendant was frightened and was \u201cseeing death. I\u2019m scared they are trying to kill me.\u201d It was definitely prior to getting the gun that she had been shot, hit in the head and face, and had fractured her arm.\nDefendant then fired the gun once at Veronica, striking her arm. Defendant was not angry at Veronica for hitting her in the face. She mainly was \u201ctrying to protect myself for fear I was in.\u201d She did not intend to kill Veronica. She did not know if Veronica had a gun or other weapon. She shot because Veronica \u201cwas coming at me with the rest of them.\u201d\nAfter the single shot fired at Veronica, defendant did not fire the gun again. Defendant heard several more shots, but did not know where they came from. Defendant saw \u201ca couple guns out there\u201d in the crowd. There could have been four, five, or more guns. \u201cLooked like fifty of them out there.\u201d\nDefendant did not shoot \u2014 or even see \u2014 Juliette. \u201cWell, I was looking and it was more of them than us as it was like thirty there to twenty and talking to Veronica, they telling her, you know, this is the way you all want to play. These are my exact words. I did not see Juliette].\u201d\nDefendant admitted lying to the police and to the assistant State\u2019s Attorney. She told the police five different stories \u201c[b]ecause of fear. I was scared. *** The things that they were saying in there to me ***. You\u2019re a cold-blooded murderer and all those things.\u201d\nIn rebuttal, 15-year-old Louis Claybom testified for the State that on August 29, 1987, he never had a car jack or steel object in his hand, and never struck defendant in the back of the head.\nMrs. Grover testified in rebuttal for the State that there were no guns in her home, that she did not see her son Robert in the crowd prior to the shooting, and that she did not tell Robert to go home and get a gun.\nLinis Kelecius testified in rebuttal that defendant told him she pulled out her gun and that she fired at and hit a light-skinned man who had shot her, but that she hit Juliette instead. Kelecius also took a statement from Cunningham, who never said that someone hit defendant in the head with a jack and in fact said that he never saw anyone hit defendant.\nJack Wilkins testified in rebuttal that he and his partner interviewed defendant at the station. She never said one of the Clayborn brothers shot her. She never said that Louis hit her in the back of the head with a car jack.\nOpinion\nDefendant contends that the Illinois first degree murder statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 9 \u2014 1 et seq.) is unconstitutional on due process, equal protection and separation of powers grounds.\nWe have recently rejected identical arguments, and we follow those\" decisions here. (See, e.g., People v. Davis (1991), 221 Ill. App. 3d 1023, 583 N.E.2d 64 (and citations contained therein); People v. Newbern (1991), 219 Ill. App. 3d 333, 579 N.E.2d 583; People v. Wright (1991), 218 Ill. App. 3d 764, 578 N.E.2d 1090; People v. Thomas (1991), 216 Ill. App. 3d 469, 576 N.E.2d 1020; People v. Doss (1991), 214 Ill. App. 3d 1051, 574 N.E.2d 806; People v. Gore (1991), 212 Ill. App. 3d 984, 571 N.E.2d 1041.) We hold that the statute under which defendant was convicted is constitutional.\nDefendant next contends that her conviction for first degree murder should be reduced to second degree murder because she acted with a \u201csudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 9 \u2014 2(a)(1).\nThe relevant question on review, when faced with a challenge to the sufficiency of the proof, is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Young (1989), 128 Ill. 2d 1, 538 N.E.2d 461.\nWhether a homicide is classified as first or second degree murder is a question for the trier of fact. (People v. Falconer (1988), 168 Ill. App. 3d 618, 522 N.E.2d 903.) The burden of proof is on defendant to prove the mitigating factor by a preponderance of the evidence. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 9 \u2014 2(c).) A person commits second degree murder if she kills an individual without lawful justification under a \u201csudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by the individual killed or another whom the offender endeavors to kill, but he negligently or accidentally causes the death of the individual killed.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 9 \u2014 2(a)(1).) Serious provocation is defined as \u201cconduct sufficient to excite an intense passion in a reasonable person.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 9 \u2014 2(b).\nDefendant maintains that \u201cbefore she fired any shots during the incident in question, she had been shot, hit in the ribs, the wrist, and the side of the head with a hard metal object.\u201d She argues that her testimony was corroborated by the \u201cundeniable evidence of the serious injuries she sustained.\u201d\nInitially we note that, contrary to defendant\u2019s testimony, the stipulated medical evidence does not indicate that defendant\u2019s arm was fractured or that the head laceration required stitches. Instead, the stipulated medical evidence merely established that defendant was \u201ctreated for a laceration on the back of her head, a bruised left -wrist, and a through-and-through gunshot wound on the right side of her body, *** with entry on the right side of [defendant\u2019s] back *** and exit wound on the right side of the chest.\u201d\nNevertheless, defendant argues that her injuries were sustained in \u201cmutual combat\u201d and were \u201csurely provocation serious enough to reduce an alleged act of first degree murder to one of second degree murder.\u201d\nSerious provocation may arise from mutual combat. (People v. Bacon (1980), 91 Ill. App. 3d 673, 415 N.E.2d 678.) Mutual combat qualifies as serious provocation only if decedent\u2019s conduct is serious enough to unleash an intense passion in a reasonable person. (People v. Pugh (1989), 187 Ill. App. 3d 860, 543 N.E.2d 875; People v. Dortch (1974), 20 Ill. App. 3d 911, 314 N.E.2d 324 (assault by several persons armed with knives is sufficient provocation for shooting one of the people).) Defendant herself testified that she was not angry at Juliette or Veronica. In fact, she did not even see Juliette at the point in time when she fired the gun. Clearly, then, defendant\u2019s own testimony destroys her theory that she shot the victims out of intense and sudden passion. See People v. Tate (1974), 25 Ill. App. 3d 411, 419, 323 N.E.2d 485, aff\u2019d (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 105, 345 N.E.2d 480 (upholding jury\u2019s finding that defendant committed murder, not voluntary manslaughter, where defendant testified that she was not angry at the time the two victims were shot).\nIn fact, defendant testified that she fired the gun because she was protecting herself, since she had been shot and there were as many as \u201c50 guns\u201d in the crowd of 25 people.\nDefendant does not argue the second mitigating factor which can reduce first degree murder to second degree murder, i.e., if \u201c[a]t the time of the killing he believes the circumstances to be such that, if they existed, would justify or exonerate the killing\u201d as self-defense, but \u201chis belief is unreasonable.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 9\u2014 2(a)(2).) While defendant argued that mitigating theory before the jury, she has abandoned the \u201cunreasonable belief of self-defense\u201d theory before this court. In the IV2 pages of her brief devoted to this issue, defendant argues only that the evidence shows that she acted \u201cunder a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation,\u201d quoting section 9 \u2014 2(a)(1) of the statute.\nThe two mitigating factors require different frames of mind that cannot both be present in the same act. A deliberate act of self-defense would negate inferences of intense passion under provocation. See People v. Bailey (1986), 141 Ill. App. 3d 1090, 490 N.E.2d 1334.\nThus, defendant\u2019s current second degree murder theory is \u201cinconsistent with the theory she advocated at trial.\u201d People v. Tate, 25 Ill. App. 3d at 419 (on appeal, defendant argued that she acted under a sudden and intense passion, while at trial she argued that in self-defense, she struggled over a gun, which then accidentally discharged, killing two people).\nMoreover, the evidence here showed that defendant instigated the fight. A defendant cannot characterize a fight as \u201cmutual combat\u201d where defendant instigated the fight. (People v. Bacon (1980), 91 Ill. App. 3d 673, 415 N.E.2d 678.) Defendant twice crossed the street to approach Juliette and challenge her to fight. Defendant was the first person to make physical contact by repeatedly pushing and shoving Mrs. Grover and Juliette. The jury could also believe the strong and consistent testimony that Juliette repeatedly refused to fight and tried to leave. Even defense witnesses LaTonya and Cunningham testified that Juliette refused to fight and that Juliette never threatened or struck defendant.\nThe jury could also find credible the testimony of the State\u2019s witnesses who heard defendant repeatedly threaten to \u201ckill somebody around here\u201d and who heard defendant specifically threaten to kill Juliette.\nThe evidence also showed that the \u201cretaliation\u201d by defendant was disproportionate to the provocation, if any. Where the provocation, if any, is slight and retaliation disproportionately great, the crime is first degree murder. (People v. Dowdell (1980), 84 Ill. App. 3d 707, 406 N.E.2d 123.) The only evidence tending to indicate that defendant was shot before she fired her gun was defendant\u2019s own testimony. No other witness testified that the first shots fired struck defendant, and that she then returned fire. Moreover, when she did fire the gun, she aimed at and shot Veronica, yet she testified that it was Robert who had shot her. Defendant testified she did not see Juliette, Julius or Veronica with any weapons.\nMoreover, the jury could well have disbelieved defendant\u2019s trial testimony that Robert Claybom shot her. Defendant\u2019s testimony that she did not know who shot her until someone visited her in jail and told her it was Robert lacks credibility, particularly where she never made a visual identification of Robert as the shooter.\nMoreover, the jury could reasonably believe that the three victims posed little threat to defendant since Julius was in a full leg cast and on crutches, Juliette was blind in one eye and had vision problems with the other eye, and Veronica was prevented from getting close to defendant by Mrs. Grover, Julius and Cunningham.\nDefendant\u2019s case was further undermined by the testimony of defense witness Cunningham, who said that defendant did not shoot anyone. This conflicted with defendant\u2019s testimony that she shot Veronica. Moreover, Cunningham admitted lying to the police. Defendant testified that she also had lied to the police, giving them five different versions of the incident.\nThe jury was instructed regarding second degree murder and it did not find in defendant\u2019s favor on that issue. It is the province of the trier of fact to weigh the credibility of the witnesses. Here, \u201cwhere there are numerous variations in the [eyewitnesses\u2019] testimony concerning what occurred, the trier of fact\u2019s observation of the demeanor of witnesses is particularly significant.\u201d People v. Tate, 25 Ill. App. 3d at 419 (eight eyewitnesses to shooting). See also People v. Irvin (1969), 115 Ill. App. 2d 332, 252 N.E.2d 764 (abstract of opinion) (issue was for the trier of fact as to whether defendant was provoked to a sudden and intense passion causing him to fire gun at deceased after, during melee in part involving many people, deceased threw bottle at defendant).\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nMcNULTY, P.J., and LORENZ, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE GORDON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Randolph N. Stone, Public Defender, of Chicago (Robert D. Click, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.", "Jack O\u2019Malley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb and Michael Latz, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SONDRA BANKS, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 1\u201488\u20140628\nOpinion filed March 13, 1992.\nRandolph N. Stone, Public Defender, of Chicago (Robert D. Click, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nJack O\u2019Malley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb and Michael Latz, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0462-01", "first_page_order": 486, "last_page_order": 499 }