People v. Shipp
52 Ill. App. 3d 470, 367 N.E.2d 966, 10 Ill. Dec. 357 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant claims self-defense, a history of severe violence and threats by the decedent against the defendant is highly probative in establishing the reasonableness of the defendant's belief that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. The firing of multiple shots, even after the threat may have subsided, does not necessarily negate a self-defense claim if the initial use of force was justified and the events occurred rapidly under extreme duress.
Facts:
- In 1952, Robert Shipp was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for killing his first wife.
- In 1965, after the defendant ended her professional relationship with Shipp, he broke into her parents' home and shot her five times. Shipp was subsequently convicted of attempted murder for this act.
- After Shipp's release from prison in 1972, he and the defendant married, during which time he repeatedly beat her, once causing a broken rib.
- After their divorce in 1975, Shipp continued to harass, threaten, and sexually assault the defendant. Days before the killing, he held her at knifepoint and threatened to cut her throat.
- On February 3, 1976, the defendant deliberately provoked Shipp by leaving a bar with another man, Selmon Hall, and going to a friend's house.
- Shipp followed them, pushed his way into the house, entered the bedroom where they were, and threatened Hall.
- Shipp, with one hand in his pocket, advanced on the defendant despite her brandishing a revolver and warning him to stop.
- When Shipp was within six feet of her, the defendant, cornered and believing he would kill her, fired the revolver five times, killing him.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged with murder, voluntary manslaughter, and unlawful use of weapons in the circuit court of Stephenson County, the trial court.
- Following a jury trial, the defendant was acquitted of murder and unlawful use of weapons but was convicted of voluntary manslaughter.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.
- The State of Illinois is the appellee.
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 history of extreme violence, including a prior attempt on the defendant's life by the decedent, make the defendant's belief in the necessity of using deadly force reasonable, thereby negating a conviction for voluntary manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Presiding Justice Rechenmacher
Yes. A history of extreme violence makes the defendant's belief in the necessity of deadly force reasonable. The evidence of the decedent’s violent disposition and prior threats, including his conviction for killing his first wife and his attempted murder of the defendant, could hardly have been stronger. This history made the defendant's fear of death or great bodily harm highly reasonable when the decedent, having recently threatened her life, cornered her in a bedroom. The decedent's superior physical size and his continued advance after being warned created a reasonable perception of imminent danger, regardless of whether he was actually armed. A defendant's perception of danger, not the actual peril, is what is dispositive. While one is not justified in shooting an already disabled attacker, that rule cannot be applied mechanically; a person under terrifying attack is not expected to have perfect judgment, and the firing of several shots in rapid succession does not automatically negate a valid claim of self-defense.
Analysis:
This decision is a significant example of how courts consider the cumulative effect of domestic violence in assessing a self-defense claim, pre-dating the formal development of "battered woman syndrome" defenses. It establishes that the reasonableness of a defendant's fear must be viewed through the lens of the victim's past experiences with the abuser. The ruling provides a strong precedent that a history of severe abuse can justify the use of deadly force and that the court should not expect perfect, detached judgment from a terrified individual during a fast-moving, life-threatening confrontation. This impacts future cases by emphasizing a subjective-objective standard for reasonableness, where the jury must consider the defendant's unique knowledge and history.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Shipp