People v. Slabon
112 N.E.3d 1019
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Andrew Slabon was charged with aggravated battery for kicking nurse Lauren Benjamin while she was performing her duties at Our Lady of Resurrection Hospital; he represented himself at trial.
- Officers and EMS brought an agitated Slabon to the ER after discovering his deceased mother; he was loud, belligerent, and restrained; hospital staff attempted to take vitals and administer chemical restraints.
- Benjamin introduced herself as the nurse assigned to his care; while adjusting his oxygen mask, Slabon pivoted and kicked her in the chest; witnesses testified he used profanities and racially derogatory slurs prior to the kick.
- Toxicology showed Slabon’s blood-alcohol level was 0.244 and cannabis positive; Slabon sought to present intoxication evidence to negate mens rea, arguing he did not know Benjamin was a nurse or lacked awareness.
- The trial court precluded voluntary-intoxication as a defense and instructed the jury that voluntary intoxication is not a defense; the jury convicted Slabon of aggravated battery and he was sentenced to 50 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Slabon argued (1) exclusion of intoxication evidence and the jury instruction denied his right to present a defense, and (2) the court erred by refusing a lesser-included instruction for simple battery; the court affirmed and ordered correction of the mittimus to the correct statutory subsection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of voluntary intoxication evidence to negate mens rea | Voluntary intoxication generally is not a defense under §6-3; exclusion was proper | Intoxication was relevant to whether he knew Benjamin was a nurse (requisite knowledge) and to negate intent | Court upheld exclusion as a defense but found intoxication evidence permitted; any exclusion error was harmless because the record showed knowledge despite intoxication |
| Jury instruction that voluntary intoxication is not a defense | Instruction correctly stated law and prevented adverse inference | Instruction misstated law because intoxication can negate specific intent and misled jury it could not consider intoxication at all | Instruction was proper: voluntary intoxication is not a defense and court still admitted evidence of intoxication for context |
| Refusal to give lesser-included instruction for simple battery | No argument for lesser-included from the State; aggravated battery elements were met | testified he did not know Benjamin was a nurse, so slight evidence supported simple battery instruction | Court refused instruction; found defendant’s testimony and circumstantial evidence established he knew she was a nurse; no prejudice from refusal |
| Mittimus error | State agreed mittimus mis-cited statutory subsection | Requested correction to reflect aggravated battery of a registered nurse under §12-3.05(d)(11) | Court ordered the clerk to correct the mittimus to cite §12-3.05(d)(11) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Illgen, 145 Ill.2d 353 (trial court’s evidentiary discretion reviewed for abuse)
- People v. Redmond, 265 Ill. App. 3d 292 (voluntary intoxication is not a defense)
- People v. Cunningham, 123 Ill. App. 2d 190 (extreme voluntary intoxication can negate specific intent)
- People v. Madej, 106 Ill. 2d 201 (defendant’s detailed recollection can show awareness of surroundings)
- People v. Weir, 111 Ill. 2d 334 (intoxication does not automatically negate required mental state)