{ "id": 3116063, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SALVADOR SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Sanchez", "decision_date": "1981-04-27", "docket_number": "No. 79-2408", "first_page": "1006", "last_page": "1012", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "95 Ill. App. 3d 1006" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "67 Ill. 2d 594", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "368 N.E.2d 561", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "53 Ill. App. 3d 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3391245 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "404" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/53/0395-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 S. Ct. 273", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 L. Ed. 2d 181", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "434 U.S. 894", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6405124, 6405222, 6405325, 6406317, 6405935, 6405421, 6405041, 6405555, 6404951, 6405786, 6405661, 6406111 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/434/0894-03", "/us/434/0894-04", "/us/434/0894-05", "/us/434/0894-12", "/us/434/0894-10", "/us/434/0894-06", "/us/434/0894-02", "/us/434/0894-07", "/us/434/0894-01", "/us/434/0894-09", "/us/434/0894-08", "/us/434/0894-11" ] }, { "cite": "363 N.E.2d 838", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "66 Ill. 2d 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5463653 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "559" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/66/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "391 N.E.2d 440", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "73 Ill. App. 3d 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3264495 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "254" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/73/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 S. Ct. 1881", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 L. Ed. 2d 296", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "398 U.S. 954", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6258725, 6257766, 6258409, 6259722, 6259345, 6257393, 6256981, 6258105, 6259034 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/398/0954-06", "/us/398/0954-03", "/us/398/0954-05", "/us/398/0954-09", "/us/398/0954-08", "/us/398/0954-02", "/us/398/0954-01", "/us/398/0954-04", "/us/398/0954-07" ] }, { "cite": "255 N.E.2d 432", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 Ill. 2d 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2890771 ], "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "248" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/44/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 N.E.2d 150", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 Ill. 2d 418", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2799860 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "423" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/24/0418-01" ] }, { "cite": "288 N.E.2d 363", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "52 Ill. 2d 374", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5394202 ], "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "390" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/52/0374-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 N.E.2d 537", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ill. 2d 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5404456 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "531" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/56/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 S. Ct. 1658", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 L. Ed. 136", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "case_ids": [ 11294033 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/114/0340-01" ] }, { "cite": "402 U.S. 972", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11767201, 11766531, 11766566, 11766759, 11767023, 11767089, 11766834, 11766972, 11767158, 11766684, 11766623 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/402/0972-11", "/us/402/0972-01", "/us/402/0972-02", "/us/402/0972-05", "/us/402/0972-08", "/us/402/0972-09", "/us/402/0972-06", "/us/402/0972-07", "/us/402/0972-10", "/us/402/0972-04", "/us/402/0972-03" ] }, { "cite": "263 N.E.2d 840", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 Ill. 2d 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2899528 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "375" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/46/0348-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 S. Ct. 2858", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 L. Ed. 2d 296", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "442 U.S. 929", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1531938, 1532133, 1531912, 1532170, 1532010, 1532202, 1532021, 1531990, 1532122, 1532092, 1531806 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/442/0929-02", "/us/442/0929-01", "/us/442/0929-10", "/us/442/0929-08", "/us/442/0929-11", "/us/442/0929-03", "/us/442/0929-04", "/us/442/0929-09", "/us/442/0929-05", "/us/442/0929-06", "/us/442/0929-07" ] }, { "cite": "385 N.E.2d 671", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "74 Ill. 2d 329", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2994485 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "344" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/74/0329-01" ] }, { "cite": "404 N.E.2d 233", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 Ill. 2d 564", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3069192 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "576" }, { "page": "576-77" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/79/0564-01" ] }, { "cite": "418 N.E.2d 739", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 Ill. 2d 350", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3046232 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "359" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/84/0350-01" ] }, { "cite": "352 N.E.2d 240", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 Ill. App. 3d 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2968065 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "317-18" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/40/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "413 N.E.2d 378", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "82 Ill. 2d 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5475380 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "551-52" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/82/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "416 N.E.2d 1212", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "93 Ill. App. 3d 105", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3132981 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "110" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/93/0105-01" ] }, { "cite": "408 N.E.2d 1092", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 Ill. App. 3d 358", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3180882 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "363" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/87/0358-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 S. Ct. 1600", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "51 L. Ed. 2d 805", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "430 U.S. 955", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12160548, 12160525, 12160718, 12160655, 12160686, 12160625, 12160753, 12160598, 12160790, 12160506, 12160571, 12160829 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/430/0955-03", "/us/430/0955-02", "/us/430/0955-09", "/us/430/0955-07", "/us/430/0955-08", "/us/430/0955-06", "/us/430/0955-10", "/us/430/0955-05", "/us/430/0955-11", "/us/430/0955-01", "/us/430/0955-04", "/us/430/0955-12" ] }, { "cite": "357 N.E.2d 465", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 Ill. 2d 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5436340 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "90" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/65/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "307 N.E.2d 382", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ill. 2d 306", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5404955 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "310" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/56/0306-01" ] }, { "cite": "410 N.E.2d 866", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "81 Ill. 2d 537", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5480259 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "542" }, { "page": "542" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/81/0537-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 868, "char_count": 16203, "ocr_confidence": 0.907, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0648243948001311e-07, "percentile": 0.5581035805562409 }, "sha256": "2776c4dc9d85bac5fa142c7c85a7b0dfee587b6075bc14ce30293e15b835b510", "simhash": "1:333672d8db489786", "word_count": 2852 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:14:33.414377+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. SALVADOR SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GOLDBERG\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAfter a jury trial, Salvador Sanchez (defendant) was found guilty of the murder of Gustavo Carrillo and the aggravated battery of Emanuel Valdez and Tomas Catalan. He was sentenced to 20 years and 3 years, respectively, to be served concurrently. Defendant appeals.\nOfficer James Schmidt testified that on March 18,1978, he received a call regarding a man shot at the Niagara Lounge. At that location he saw Gustavo Carrillo (decedent) lying on the sidewalk and Emanuel Valdez (Valdez) lying in the street. Tomas Catalan (Catalan), shot in the foot, was in the tavern.\nEmanuel Valdez testified that on March 18, 1978, at about 4 a.m., he was walking out of the Niagara Lounge when he was shot twice by a man who was standing four steps away from the entrance. Valdez pointed to defendant as that man but said he was \u201cnot too sure\u201d because he \u201cfelt so ill\u201d at the time. Valdez said he did not know anyone at the tavern.\nOn cross-examination Valdez testified there had been an argument between defendant and another man. He never saw them push each other. Defendant and the other-man left together.\nBennie Fonte testified he was driving a truck and had stopped at a red light at a corner near the tavern. He heard a \u201cpretty loud noise\u201d and then saw a crowd to his left at the tavern. He saw a \u201cflash of a gun going off.\u201d He saw a man \u201cgoing from the sidewalk, and he [the man] dived between the parked cars to put the car between him and the man with the gun.\u201d He said he saw \u201ca man standing there just firing into the crowd.\u201d The man fired the gun five or six times. The man stopped firing, held the gun at his side, walked a few steps, and ran. Fonte jumped out of the truck and ran to the man behind the car. The man was bleeding. Another person was lying on the sidewalk nearby.\nTomas Catalan testified that on March 18, 1978, he and decedent each had three beers in a certain bar. They arrived at the Niagara Lounge at 3 a.m. Another man was with them. At one point decedent started talking to defendant who was close to the wall. Catalan did not hear what they said, but heard them laughing. Catalan went to the bathroom and when he returned, decedent and defendant \u201cwere going out.\u201d Catalan \u201cstood to go follpw them\u201d because he thought he and decedent were going home. He was 15 or 20 feet away. Decedent walked ahead of defendant. They were standing outside the door. Catalan testified, \u201cWhen I stepped up alongside of him, I told them, \u2018[I]t appears like you maybe wanting to fight, that is not right. You are working partners.\u2019 \u201d Defendant walked 25 feet away. Then he \u201cstopped suddenly, and turned around and started to fire.\u201d Before defendant fired, he and decedent were talking, but Catalan did not hear what was said. After defendant started to fire, Catalan \u201cgot scared\u201d and \u201cfelt where he shot me in the leg.\u201d He went back inside the tavern.\nCatalan also testified he, defendant, and the decedent worked in the sam\u00e9 factory. He and decedent had two more beers to drink at the tavern. He did not see any struggling or pushing between defendant and the decedent. He denied telling an officer he said so after the incident.\nThe parties stipulated that if Dr. Tae Lyong An were called he would testify he examined the body of decedent on March 18, 1978. Decedent was 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighed 222 pounds. The body contained five entry wounds and four exit wounds.\nOfficer Dennis Wheeler testified he was employed as a Los Angeles police officer. On April 1, 1978, he, Officer Gory, and Officer Sheehan went to a certain residence in Los Angeles. Wheel\u00e9r told the man who opened the door he had a fugitive warrant for defendant for murder. The man said defendant was inside. Wheeler saw defendant inside. Defendant \u201cmade an attempt to run out the back door,\u201d was confronted by an officer and went back in. The officers took defendant to the police station in a car. He was read his rights and indicated he understood them. Wheeler said defendant stated, \u201c \u2018That guy kept pushing me and pushing me.\u2019 \u201d\nQffic.er Gory asked defendant what kind of gun he had used. Defendant said it, was a Browning 9-millimeter automatic. Defendant stated he had thrown the gun away between Chicago and Los Angeles. He said he had only so much patience and deced\u00e9nt had pushed him and he was not sorry for what he had done. These conversations were all in English.\nSergeant Joseph Celorsky, a firearms examiner, testified the bullets collected from the scene were fired from a 9-millimeter weapon.\nInvestigator William Baldree testified that on March 18, 1978, he went to St. Anthony\u2019s Hospital where he saw Valdez in the emergency room. Officer Hosea Torres was also there. At the time of trial, Torres was in a hospital due to a recent automobile accident. Torres served as an interpreter. Torres told Baldree about the conversation he and Valdez had. Torres said Valdez had said there had been a shoving incident and an argument. It was closing time. After they were going out the door, one of the men who had been in the argument pulled a pistol and started shooting. Valdez was shot, and he saw decedent shot. Defendant then fled. Torres said Valdez said the others in the tavern were his friends. Torres also said Valdez, Catalan, and decedent left the tavern at the same time.\nThe parties stipulated that if Officer Torres were called to testify he would state he interviewed Catalan in the emergency room on March 18. Catalan said he saw decedent arguing with defendant. Catalan told decedent they should leave. They got up and walked out.\nDefendant testified he went to the tavern at 3 a.m. on March 18. He had three drinks. He saw decedent when he was at the bar and decedent walked by on his way to the bathroom. Defendant greeted him and decedent \u201ckept looking\u201d at him. Defendant testified, \u201cHe said that I thought I was hot stuff, but I was worth shit.\u201d Defendant asked him why he told him that. Decedent grabbed his collar. Defendant \u201ctried to pull away from him, but he said 9 9 9 he could do anything he wanted with me.\u201d Then four other men came closer. Two of them, Valdez and Catalan, testified. Decedent said he had friends who could do anything he wanted. The other men stared and laughed and decedent said \u201c \u2018come on, you son of a bitch.\u2019 \u201d He did not know at that time if the other men had weapons.\nDefendant said, \u201cI felt fear and decided the best thing to do was to leave and go home.\u201d He had stepped outside when he saw they were all following him. Decedent told him, \u201c \u2018[T]his is it, you are going to get it, you SOB.\u2019 \u201d At that point decedent was \u201ccloser to me with his friends behind him.\u201d Defendant testified, \u201cI took out the gun.\u201d He said he fired and \u201cwas afraid.\u201d He did not know whether decedent had a weapon. After he fired the first time, decedent continued to get closer to him. He \u201cfired more\u201d and then \u201clooked and I didn\u2019t know what to do so I ran.\u201d\nHe went to Los Angeles where he was arrested in his friend\u2019s house. Investigator Wheeler had his gun drawn, so defendant \u201cgot scared\u201d and \u201cjumped from the table in the kitchen.\u201d Defendant testified he spoke to the Los Angeles police. He said that on March 18 he was carrying a semi-automatic 9-millimeter pistol with 12 bullets.\nOn cross-examination defendant said he did not know how many times he fired. Decedent kept coming so he kept shooting. He said decedent was the only one he fired at \u201cbecause he was walking in front of them.\u201d He also said in the tavern he \u201cwas telling him I didn\u2019t want to have anything to do with him.\u201d He said he threw the gun away about two blocks from the scene.\nOn redirect he said he was carrying a gun because he \u201chad been beaten and robbed twice.\u201d He said when he spoke to the police he told Investigator Wheeler he was not sorry \u201cbecause he threatened me many times, insulted me, and I kept telling him I didn\u2019t want anything to do with him.\u201d He continued, \u201cI took a lot from him, and I thought he could kill me. I didn\u2019t know what else to do.\u201d He said he told Wheeler he had nothing against decedent and had no reason to fight.\nDefendant contends the State failed to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because it failed to prove defendant did not act in self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 7 \u2014 14.) Once defendant has presented \u201csome evidence\u201d of self-defense (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 3 \u2014 2(a)), the State bears the burden of proving defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to that issue and all other elements of the offense. People v. Woods (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 537, 542, 410 N.E.2d 866.\nA person is \u201cjustified 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 e \u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 7 \u2014 1.) This depends on surrounding facts and circumstances and is to be determined by the trier of fact. Woods, 81 Ill. 2d 537, 542.\nIn the instant case the jury was presented with conflicting versions of the incident. Emanuel Valdez testified defendant and another man argued at the tavern but there was no pushing. Tomas Catalan testified he told decedent and defendant \u201c \u2018it appears like you maybe wanting to fight \u00b0 \u00b0 but he saw no physical altercation. Defendant testified decedent grabbed his collar and told him he could do anything he wanted to defendant. Four other men surrounded defendant, and when defendant left the tavern, they followed him saying, \u201c \u2018You are going to get it 0 * Defendant was in such fear that he shot decedent several times in self-defense.\n\u201cIt is within the province of the jury to judge the credibility of witnesses, weigh the testimony and determine matters of fact.\u201d (People v. Benedik (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 306, 310, 307 N.E.2d 382.) If defendant\u2019s testimony is disbelieved, no legal justification for the shooting can reasonably be inferred. The jury apparently chose the version of the incident advanced by Valdez and Catalan.\nThis court will not reverse a conviction unless the evidence is so improbable as to justify a reasonable doubt of defendant\u2019s guilt. (People v. Owens (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 83, 90, 357 N.E.2d 465, cert. denied (1977), 430 U.S. 955, 51 L. Ed. 2d 805, 97 S. Ct. 1600.) After carefully reviewing this record, we find the verdict amply supported by the evidence. We note also defendant\u2019s flight to Los Angeles after the shooting as evidence of consciousness of guilt. People v. Aguero (1980), 87 Ill. App. 3d 358, 363, 408 N.E.2d 1092.\nIn our opinion, In re S. M. (1981), 93 Ill. App. 3d 105, 416 N.E.2d 1212, cited by defendant, is inapposite. This court commented about the fact that the respondent there \u201ctried to avoid a confrontation.\u201d He retreated from the group and they pursued. Also, he \u201cmade repeated efforts to flee.\u201d Again he called for \u201con-lookers to get help.\u201d In addition, he fired a warning shot into the air. (93 Ill. App. 3d 105, 110.) These factors are not present in the case at bar. In the cited case, respondent was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Defendant in the case before us was found guilty of murder. In the instant case the deceased was shot five times. One entry wound was at the back of the victim. In his reply brief, defendant attempts to refute this fact with the argument that the preceding bullet might have spun the deceased about so that the next shot entered his back. However, we cannot agree that the cited case is applicable here.\nDefendant also contends this court should reduce the degree of the offense to voluntary manslaughter (73 Ill. 2d R. 615(b)(3)). The record reflects the court tendered Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, Nos. 7.03, 7.04, 7.05 and 7.06 (1968), to the jury. The jury was fully and properly instructed on the offense of voluntary manslaughter. It was within the province of the jury to find defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter only, rather than murder. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 9 \u2014 2.) The jury rejected this alternative and thus found defendant did not have a subjective belief that the use of force was necessary. (See People v. Lockett (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 546, 551-52, 413 N.E.2d 378.) \u201cWhether defendant acted in self-defense or if not, whether the facts of the assault constitute murder or manslaughter is a question to be determined by the trier of fact and that determination will not be disturbed on review unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory as to raise a reasonable doubt as to defendant\u2019s guilt.\u201d (People v. Pearson (1976), 40 Ill. App. 3d 315, 317-18, 352 N.E.2d 240.) We find no reasonable doubt as to defendant\u2019s guilt.\nDefendant next quotes five separate statements made by the prosecutor in final argument and contends they constitute reversible error. We need not extend this opinion by setting out the details of these various comments. It is sufficient to say that we have read the closing arguments by the prosecution, and we have given careful consideration to each and every contention made by defendant.\nDefendant made no objection to any of these comments at trial. When a defendant fails to make such a timely objection, irregularities in the closing argument are ordinarily deemed waived. (People v. Jackson (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 350, 418 N.E.2d 739; People v. Carlson (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 564, 576, 404 N.E.2d 233.) Therefore, we may consider these matters only if they constitute plain error affecting substantial rights of the accused (73 Ill. 2d R. 615(a)) in a situation where the evidence is closely balanced. Jackson, 84 Ill. 2d 350, 359.\nIn this case we do not find the evidence closely balanced. We conclude that defendant may not rely upon the plain error doctrine. The fact that defendant raised certain of these objections in his motion for new trial does not change the result. See Carlson, 79 Ill. 2d 564, 576-77.\nIn addition, even if timely and proper objections had been made, we find no reversible error here. Some of these comments were properly made in answer to arguments previously made by the defendant. (People v. Vriner (1978), 74 Ill. 2d 329, 344, 385 N.E.2d 671, cert. denied (1979), 442 U.S. 929, 61 L. Ed. 2d 296, 99 S. Ct. 2858.) Other arguments were proper as pointing out the evils of crime. (People v. Hairston (1970), 46 Ill. 2d 348, 375, 263 N.E.2d 840, cert. denied (1971), 402 U.S. 972, 29 L. Ed. 136, 91 S. Ct. 1658.) At least one other argument was proper comment on the evidence and drew reasonable inferences therefrom. People v. Wright (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 523, 531, 309 N.E.2d 537.\nFurthermore, viewing the entire record here we cannot say that each of the assailed prosecutorial comments or all of them constituted \u201c \u2018a material factor in the conviction\u2019 \u201d (People v. Clark (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 374, 390, 288 N.E.2d 363; People v. Swets (1962), 24 Ill. 2d 418, 423, 182 N.E.2d 150), or resulted in \u201csubstantial prejudice to the accused\u201d (People v. Nilsson (1970), 44 Ill. 2d 244, 248, 255 N.E.2d 432, cert. denied (1970), 398 U.S. 954, 26 L. Ed. 2d 296, 90 S. Ct. 1881, or the verdict would have been different had the comments not been made (People v. Singletary (1979), 73 Ill. App. 3d 239, 254, 391 N.E.2d 440). Finally, the trial judge instructed the jury that opening statements and closing arguments are not evidence. See People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551, 559, 363 N.E.2d 838, cert. denied (1977), 434 U.S. 894, 54 L. Ed. 2d 181, 98 S. Ct. 273; People v. Smith (1977), 53 Ill. App. 3d 395, 404, 368 N.E.2d 561, appeal denied (1978), 67 Ill. 2d 594.\nFor these reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nO\u2019CONNOR and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GOLDBERG" } ], "attorneys": [ "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (James H. Reddy, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.", "Richard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr, Iris E. Sholder, and Deborah M. Dooling, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SALVADOR SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 79-2408\nOpinion filed April 27, 1981.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (James H. Reddy, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nRichard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr, Iris E. Sholder, and Deborah M. Dooling, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "1006-01", "first_page_order": 1028, "last_page_order": 1034 }