Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Janik

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided January 29, 1988No. 2-86-1065Published

1DissentJustice Reinhard

For the following reasons, I respectfully dissent from that part of the opinion which finds that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of necessity. In my view, the majority, under the facts of this case, has confused the availability of the affirmative defense of necessity with defendant’s actual defense that he did not know he was involved in an accident or collision.

Defendant was charged, inter alia, with leaving the scene of an accident pursuant to section 11 — 401(a) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 95½, par. 11—401(a)).…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. UngerIllinois Supreme Court · 1977
  2. People v. NunnIllinois Supreme Court · 1979
  3. People v. BallardIllinois Supreme Court · 1975
  4. People v. PlanerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API