People v. Eubanks, 2017 IL App (1st) 142837 (December). Episode 438 (Duration 12:56) On December 21, 2009 defendant ran over a mom and child killing the mom when he refused to give blood or urine they held him done so they could draw it.
Gist In this case, Eubanks was arrested in connection with a hit-and-run accident that killed Maria and injured Jeremiah. The police had probable cause to arrest Eubanks for driving under the influence. At the police station, Eubanks refused to take a breathalyzer test or to submit to blood and urine tests.
Facts Shortly before 9 p.m. on December 21, 2009, in the Rogers Park neighborhood of Chicago, Felix Worthon was walking home with his wife Maria and their son Jeremiah near the intersection of Greenview and Greenleaf Avenues. Maria and Jeremiah stopped to talk to Maurice Glover, a man from their church.
Felix crossed the street ahead of them. As he was crossing, he heard a sound behind him; he turned around and was nearly hit by a car. The car struck Maria and Jeremiah and kept going without stopping. The force of the impact knocked Maria’s body a block away. Maria died immediately, and Jeremiah suffered permanent injuries.
Defendant Arrested & Restrained A passenger in the car came back to the scene to tell police Defendant was the hit and run driver. He was quickly arrested.
At 2:53 a.m., an officer took Eubanks to the hospital, telling him that he was required by law to submit to blood and urine tests.
Eubanks was physically restrained by hospital security and a blood sample was taken at 4 a.m. The nurse then asked for urine, but Eubanks refused to urinate. The nurse threatened to catheterize him. As she approached him with a catheter, he urinated, and a sample was collected at 5:20 a.m.
The samples were sent to the crime lab for analysis. Eubanks’s blood produced negative results for alcohol or any illegal substance, but his urine tested positive for cannabis, ecstasy, and cocaine metabolite.
The body converts drugs to metabolites over time as part of the metabolic process.
He Doesn't Get The Reckless Instruction Eubanks requested that the jury be instructed on reckless homicide as a lesser included offense of first degree murder. The court denied his request, stating that if the State’s evidence was believed, Eubanks’s actions “could only create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to some individual.” The jury found Eubanks guilty of first degree murder, failure to report a motor vehicle accident involving death or injury, and aggravated driving under the influence.
Eubanks was sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment.
Was It Error To Deny Reckless Instruction? Eubanks first argues that he was entitled to a jury instruction on reckless homicide since there was some evidence that he acted recklessly in causing Maria’s death.
He’s not saying the evidence is insufficient to convict him of first degree murder, nor could he reasonably do so. There are pleanty of high speed cases where courts have said first degree murder was proved becasue death or serious injury was a certainty.
Rather, Eubanks argues that there was sufficient evidence of his recklessness that the jury should have been instructed on both reckless homicide and first degree murder.
Standard On Lesser Included A defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser-included offense if there is some evidence in the record that, if believed by the jury, would reduce the crime charged to a lesser offense. People v. McDonald, 2016 IL 118882, ¶ 25. That is, the evidence must permit a rational jury to acquit the defendant of the greater offense but still find him guilty of the lesser offense.
Murder v. Reckless Homicide The primary distinction between first degree murder and reckless homicide is the mental state of the defendant. People v. Pollard, 2015 IL App (3d) 130467, ¶ 27.
Murder Under section 9-1(a)(2) of the Criminal Code of 1961, a defendant commits first degree murder when he kills an individual without lawful justification and “knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual or another.” 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2).
It is not necessary that defendant intended to kill or that he was certain that someone would die as a result of his actions.
As this court has explained: “A person who knows, i.e., is consciously aware, that his acts create a strong probability of death to another may not have such death as his conscious objective or purpose. He may simply not care whether the victim lives or dies. Under these circumstances, the person would be guilty of murder although the death was caused unintentionally.
Reckless Homicide A person acts recklessly when “he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk *** and such disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the...
0 Comments