People v. Hudson
856 N.E.2d 1078, 305 Ill. Dec. 927, 222 Ill.2d 392 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the proximate cause theory of felony murder, a defendant is liable for any death that is a direct and foreseeable consequence of their criminal actions, including the death of a co-felon killed by a third party resisting the commission of the forcible felony.
Facts:
- Lavelle Hudson and his co-felon, Chrispin Thomas, both armed with guns, entered the Fresh Barbershop with the intent to rob it.
- Thomas announced the robbery, pointed his revolver at the patrons, and demanded money.
- An off-duty, plainclothes police officer, Ricky Bean, was a customer in the shop.
- When Thomas turned his back, Officer Bean drew his service revolver and repeatedly identified himself as police, ordering Thomas to drop his weapon.
- Thomas refused to comply and instead pointed his revolver at Officer Bean from close range.
- Officer Bean fired, striking Thomas. Thomas transferred his gun to his other hand and continued to try to aim at the officer.
- Officer Bean fired two more times at Thomas's chest, killing him.
- Officer Bean then ordered Hudson to drop his gun; Hudson pointed his weapon at the officer, who then shot Hudson in the leg before Hudson fled.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Lavelle Hudson in the circuit court of Cook County (the trial court) with first degree murder under a felony-murder theory.
- At a jury instructions conference, the trial court rejected Hudson's proposed instruction on proximate cause and used the one submitted by the State.
- A jury found Hudson guilty of first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to 22 years' imprisonment.
- Hudson, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- A majority of the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, with one justice dissenting.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted Hudson's petition for leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a felony-murder jury instruction that defines causation as setting 'in motion a chain of events which cause the death' and states that it is immaterial if a third party resisting the felony commits the killing, adequately convey the proximate cause element without explicitly using the word 'foreseeable'?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Fitzgerald
Yes, the jury instruction adequately conveyed the legal principles of proximate cause in a felony-murder case. The instruction's first part, which requires the defendant to 'set in motion a chain of events which cause the death,' properly addresses the 'cause-in-fact' component. The second part, explaining that it is 'immaterial' if the killing is committed by a third person resisting the felony, sufficiently communicates the concept of legal cause, or foreseeability. This language is drawn directly from the well-established legislative history of Illinois's murder statute, which incorporated the proximate cause theory holding that resistance to a forcible felony is a foreseeable consequence for which the felon is responsible.
Concurring - Justice Freeman
No, the instruction did not properly instruct the jury on the issue of proximate cause because it was overly broad and failed to clearly convey the essential concept of foreseeability. However, this error was harmless because the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was so clear and convincing that the outcome of the trial would not have been different had the jury been properly instructed. The majority creates confusion by upholding an incomplete instruction while simultaneously suggesting a more precise one for future cases, which undermines the clarity of established law.
Dissenting - Justice McMorrow
No, the felony-murder doctrine should not apply at all in circumstances where a co-felon is killed by a third party resisting the crime. The most direct cause of the co-felon's death is his own participation in the felony and his own actions in confronting the resisting officer, not the defendant's acts. Applying the felony-murder doctrine to hold the surviving felon responsible for the death of his active co-participant is fundamentally unjust and extends the doctrine beyond its logical and public policy justifications.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and solidifies Illinois's broad application of the proximate cause theory in felony-murder cases, specifically confirming liability when a co-felon is killed by a resisting victim. The court establishes that a jury instruction does not require the specific legal term 'foreseeable' if the underlying concept is conveyed through other language, such as explaining that a killing by a third party resisting the crime is included. However, by suggesting a 'more precise' instruction for future cases, the court may have inadvertently created a new point of contention for future appeals regarding the adequacy of similar instructions.
