People v. S.M. - 93 Ill. App. 3d 105, 48 Ill.
Dec. 690, 416 N.E.2d 1212 (1981)
Rule:
Where the initial use of force is justified, the claim of self-defense will not necessarily be
negated by the fact that several shots are fired, or that the last shot is fired after the attack is over.
Rather, where the accused is initially justified in firing, the claim of self-defense will be negated
only where the State establishes that the interval between the initial shot and the subsequent
shots is sufficient to allow the accused, acting as a reasonable person, to realize that no further
shooting was necessary. The party assailed is not expected to use infallible judgment in this
regard.
Facts:
On April 28, 1978, defendant S.M., a minor, shot and killed two teenage boys and wounded two
others in the parking lot of the high school that the boys attended. A petition for adjudication of
wardship was filed charging him with the murder of Michael Truppa and Robert Paulish, with
aggravated battery upon Michael Gale and Russell Peterson, and with unlawful use of a weapon.
Prior to trial, S.M. pleaded guilty to unlawful use of a weapon. Following trial he was adjudged
delinquent for the commission of two counts of voluntary manslaughter and two counts of
aggravated battery. A dispositional hearing was conducted, and S.M. was committed to the
Illinois Department of Corrections ("Department"). S.M. appealed, contending that: (1) the State
failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defense; and (2) the trial
court's dispositional order was contrary to the weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion.
Issue:
Was the claim of self-defense negated by the fact that7S.M. continued to fire several shots after
firing an initial warning shot?
Answer:
No.
Conclusion:
The appellate court held that the evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that7S.M.
did not act in self-defense. According to the evidence, three more people continued to advance
on7S.M. even as they were shot. There was nothing to indicate that the danger to S.M.
ended7either after7he fired7the initial warning shot or even after Peterson was shot. Further, where
the initial use of force was justified, the claim of self-defense will not necessarily be negated by
the fact that several shots were fired, or that the last shot was fired after the attack was over.
Whether S.M. acted in self-defense depended upon the facts and circumstances and was a
question for the trier of fact, but the court was permitted to reverse the conviction where the
record left a grave and substantial doubt of7guilt. The court dismissed the judgment of the trial
court that adjudged7S.M. delinquent for the commission of two counts of voluntary manslaughter
and two counts of aggravated battery. The court vacated the trial court's dispositional order
committing S.M. to the Department, and7remanded the cause for dispositional hearing on the
judgment of delinquency for the unlawful use of a weapon.
