{ "id": 2713277, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron Baker, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Baker", "decision_date": "1975-08-08", "docket_number": "No. 74-67", "first_page": "51", "last_page": "56", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "31 Ill. App. 3d 51" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "402 Ill. 347", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2617317 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/402/0347-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 N.E.2d 596", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 Ill.2d 603", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2761814 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "607-08" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/16/0603-01" ] }, { "cite": "311 N.E.2d 681", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 Ill.2d 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5407197 ], "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/57/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 N.E.2d 33", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "36" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 Ill.App.3d 821", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5373722 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "825" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/21/0821-01" ] }, { "cite": "205 N.E.2d 749", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "752-54" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ill.App.2d 159", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5285428 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "165-68" }, { "page": "165-66" }, { "page": "165" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/56/0159-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N.E.2d 485", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "488" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "401 Ill. 68", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5307102 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "73" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/401/0068-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 636, "char_count": 11458, "ocr_confidence": 0.71, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3322502534477173e-07, "percentile": 0.6291608120782332 }, "sha256": "5415500be55e8048b801f9327b53c930699da1129e4876b70f398dcc0eb93bee", "simhash": "1:9062b6a80ff8a7bf", "word_count": 1945 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:56.206419+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. Aaron Baker, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE GUILD\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Aaron Baker, was convicted of aggravated battery in a jury trial in the circuit court of Kane County and sentenced to the Kane County Work Release Program for \u201can interval of 4-8 moiiths\u201d and placed on 2 years\u2019 probation. On appeal the defendant contends: (1) the State failed to produce clear and convincing evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant\u2019s use of force in defense of himself and another was unreasonable, and (2) the conduct of the trial court was prejudicial against the defendant.\nWe find the defendant\u2019s first contention has merit and reverse on that ground.\nThe record discloses that on September 21, 1972, Raymond Hilleshiem and Gary Diehs were coworkers at Kinney Electric in Elgin. At 4:30 p.m. they left work together in Hilleshiem\u2019s car and stopped off at a bar on their way home for a couple of beers. They picked up Mrs. Hilleshiem at work and went to Hilleshiem\u2019s home for dinner and to split a six-pack of beer. After dinner they listened to music and drank more beer. At 11 p.m. the two men drove to Smitty\u2019s Tap in South Elgin to pay a bill and drink a few beers. At 11:35 p.m. they left Smitty\u2019s Tap intending to take Diehs to his apartment. They did not take a direct route to Diehs\u2019 apartment.\nAt the interesection of Villa Street and Prairie Street in Elgin, an automobile, driven by Mrs. June Kraft, executed a left turn from Prairie Street onto Villa Street in front of Hilleshiem\u2019s automobile. In order to avoid the collision Hilleshiem was forced to slam on the brakes and swerve his automobile to the right, over the curb. Both Hilleshiem and Diehs became very upset and followed the Kraft automobile.\nThe testimony from this point on is contradictory. The gist of Hilleshiem\u2019s and Diehs\u2019 testimony is that they began following the Kraft autolnobile to find out why it ran them off the road. As they followed Diehs was yelling profanities out of the window at the Kraft automobile. They followed the Kraft automobile down a four-lane street, through several brightly lighted intersections and stopped twice for red lights. Finally, the two men pulled up behind the Kraft automobile, parked on a dark, deserted street. Hilleshiem exited his automobile and charged up on the driver\u2019s side of the Kraft automobile. He demanded to know why they ran them off the road. A scuffle ensued and blows were exchanged. Hilleshiem, 6'2\" tall weighing 205 pounds, testified that June Kraft, ah average-sized woman, attacked him.\nDiehs testified that he exited the automobile and rushed to assist Hilleshiem. At the same time the defendant got out of Mrs. Kraft\u2019s automobile. As Diehs rushed towards the Kraft automobile he spotted the defendant. At this time Hilleshiem saw the defendant had a gun in his hand and shouted, \u201cWatch out, the guy has a gun.\u201d The defendant then fired a shot into the air and yelled, \u201cStay where you are or I\u2019ll shoot.\u201d Diehs was about 10 feet away from the defendant. An argument followed between Diehs and the defendant. Diehs called the defendant \u201ca bastard \u00f3r a son-of-a-bitch, or something like that.\u201d The argument ended when the 6'3\", '260-pound Diehs took a step towards the 6', 170-pound defendant and was shot. The police arrived within minutes and then, while still upset, Diehs hit the defendant in the mouth.\nThe defendant\u2019s version is quite different. He testified Mrs. Kraft was driving him home. He further testified he was aware that an automobile was following them on Villa Street because it was flashing its lights. While stopped at a red light on the comer of Chicago Street and Villa' Street, that automobile bumped into the backend of the Kraft automobile. Both Mrs. Kraft and the defendant were afraid it was Mrs. Kraft\u2019s ex-husband, who had harassed her in the past. Mrs. Kraft continued to drive directly to the defendant\u2019s home. While stopped at another red light on the comer of Villa Street and Highland Avenue, Hilleshiem\u2019s automobile pulled up along the right side of Mrs. Kraft\u2019s automobile. Someone in the Hilleshiem automobile yelled, \u2018Tull this m-----f-----over, you son-of-a-bitch. We are going to stomp you.\u201d Neither the defendant, nor Mrs. Kraft recognized either of the men. Mrs. Kraft continued to drive directly to the defendant\u2019s home. While stopped at another red light at Spring Street, Hilleshiem\u2019s automobile again bumped into the backend of Mrs. Kraft\u2019s automobile.\nThe defendant testified that both automobiles arrived at the defendant\u2019s home at the same time. Before the defendant and Mrs. Kraft had an opportunity to seek refuge in his home, Hilleshiem had exited his automobile, yelled, \u201cGet the hell out of that car,\u201d and dragged Mrs. Kraft from the automobile. Hilleshiem then hit her, knocking her to the ground and kicked her. The defendant left the Kraft automobile under his own power, intending to help Mrs. Kraft. He was met immediately outside the car door by Diehs who started choking the defendant with both hands. Mrs. Kraft got off tire ground, ran away from Hilleshiem towards the defendant, to help him. With her assistance, the defendant broke away from Diehs, jumped back a couple of steps and drew a pistol from his coat. Mrs. Kraft was knocked down by Diehs and was lying between the defendant and Diehs. The defendant fired a warning shot into the air and shouted, \u201cGet the hell out of here and leave us alone.\u201d An argument ensued between Diehs and the defendant. Hilleshiem was walking towards the defendant. Diehs yelled, from about 5 feet away, \u201cI\u2019m going to kill you, you bastard.\u201d The defendant pleaded, \u201cStop, please stop,\u201d but Diehs moved towards the defendant and defendant shot him. The police arrived almost immediately.\nIn response to defendant\u2019s first contention, the law is well settled in Illinois. As early as People v. Willson (1948), 401 Ill. 68, 73, 81 N.E.2d 485, 488, the court stated:\n\u201c* * * it is well settled that this court may review all of the evidence to determine whether it shows the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and where the record leaves this court with a grave and substantial doubt of the guilt of the defendant we will reverse the judgment.\u201d\nThe defendant was charged with aggravated battery which is defined by section 12 \u2014 4 of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, \u00a7 12\u2014 4) as follows:\n\u201c(a) A person who, in committing a battery, intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, or permanent disability or disfigurement commits aggravated battery.\u201d\nBattery is defined by section 12 \u2014 3 of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, \u00a7 12 \u2014 3) as follows:\n\u201c(a) A person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means, (1) causes bodily harm to an individual * * (Emphasis added.)\nThe defendant has raised the affirmative defense of defense of a person, (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, \u00a7 7 \u2014 1.) Once the defense is raised, the State has the burden of proving the defendant\u2019s guilt beyond a rea^ sonable doubt as to the issues, together with aH of the other elements of the offense. IH. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, \u00a7 3 \u2014 2.\nThe defense of. a person was thoroughly discussed in People v. Williams (1965), 56 Ill.App.2d 159, 165-68, 205 N.E.2d 749, 752\u201454, wherein the court stated the elements, of the defense as follows:\n\u201cThese elements are: (1) that force is threatened against the person; (2) that the person threatened is not the aggressor; (3) that the danger of harm is imminent; (4) that the force threatened is unlawful; (5) that the person threatened must actuaUy believe: (a) that a danger exists, (b) that the use of force is necessary to avert the danger, (c) that the kind and amount of force which he uses is necessary; and (6) that the above beHefs are reasonable. There is a further principle involved, when, as in the instant case, the defendant uses deadly force. This principle limits the use of deadly force to those situations in which (a) the threatened force wiU cause death or great bodily harm or (b) the force threatened is a forcible felony.\u201d (56 Ill.App.2d 159, 165\u201466.)\nThe court went on to say:\n\u201c* * * it is settled law that * * * where he [defendant] pleads self-defense, it is sufficient to acquit him, if his evidence on self-defense, together with aH the other evidence in the case, creates a reasonable doubt of his guilt.\u201d 56 Ill.App.2d 159, 165.\nIn the case at hand, we do not believe the State has met the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant\u2019s use of force was not justified. The law in iUinois recognizes that a physical beating may qualify as such conduct that could cause great bodily harm. (People v. Dowdy (1974), 21 Ill.App.3d 821, 825, 316 N.E.2d 33, 36.) The record shows that HHleshiem and Diehs had been drinking heav\u00fcy; that they were both larger than the defendant and Mrs. Kraft; that HiUeshiem knew that Diehs became violent when he was drinking and that he had had to restrain him on several other occasions; and that the two men were upset about being forced off the road and commenced chasing the Kraft automobile, yeHing profanities. Furthermore, Mr. Diehs admitted hitting the defendant after the police arrived, although the police testified that it did not occur then. Under those circumstances and, since it occurred in a dark, foggy, deserted area at night, we conclude that HHleshiem and Diehs instigated the imminent threat of great bod\u00fcy harm to Mrs. Kraft and the defendant. The force was without any justification and totally unlawful. The defendant was reasonable in believing that the danger existed and that deadly force was necessary to avert the danger. He was under no obligation to retreat. (People v. Wil liams (1974), 57 Ill.2d 239, 311 N.E.2d 681.) Therefore, the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force for the protection of Mrs. Kraft and himself. As the supreme court stated in People v. Dougard (1959), 16 Ill.2d 603, 607\u201408, 158 N.E.2d 596, 598:\n\u201cWe have consistently held in many cases over a long period of years that in criminal cases it is the duty of this court to review the evidence, and, if there is not sufficient credible evidence, or if it is improbable or unsatisfactory, or not sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt of defendant\u2019s guilt and create an abiding conviction that he is guilty, the conviction will be reversed. It is the duty of this court to resolve all facts and circumstances in evidence on the theory of innocence rather than guilt if that reasonably may be done, and where the entire record leaves us, as this one does, with grave and substantial doubt of the guilt of the defendant, we will not hesitate to reverse the judgment. People v. Sheppard, 402 Ill. 347.\u201d\nWe find, from a careful examination of the record, that this court has a grave and substantial doubt as to the guilt of the defendant. The conviction of the defendant is therefore reversed.\nIn view of our ruling herein it is not necessary to consider the second contention of the defendant.\nReversed.\nSEIDENFELD, P. J., and HALLETT, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE GUILD" } ], "attorneys": [ "Ralph Ruebner, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.", "Gerry L. Dondanville, State\u2019s Attorney, of Geneva (Clarence Wittenstrom, Jr., Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron Baker, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 74-67;\nSecond District (1st Division)\nAugust 8, 1975.\nRalph Ruebner, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.\nGerry L. Dondanville, State\u2019s Attorney, of Geneva (Clarence Wittenstrom, Jr., Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0051-01", "first_page_order": 75, "last_page_order": 80 }