People v. Grant

46 Ill.App.3d 125, 360 N.E.2d 809 (1977)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was at a bar where he consumed four drinks of whiskey and cola during a 2 1/2-hour period. D witnessed an altercation between another patron and the tavern owner. The police arrived, and they forcibly escorted the other patron outside where he continued to resist arrest. A hostile crowd followed the police as they exited from the tavern. Suddenly, D burst through the crowd, leaped into the air, striking an officer twice in the face. D was arrested. D was very upset, and great force was required. One hour after arrest and in a jail cell, D was found lying on his cot gasping for breath. D's eyes were fixed, and his back formed a rigid reversed arch, typical symptoms of a grand mal convulsive seizure. D was taken to the hospital. D was tried for aggravated battery. D suffers from an illness known as psychomotor epilepsy. This history includes a number of violent attacks on other persons which have varied in severity. In some, physical assistance from others was required to subdue the defendant. One, a knife assault in a hospital, was of such violence that a police officer seeking to restrain D was forced to use a weapon. The affray ended only when D was shot in the pelvis and kidney. His past history is replete with emotional outbursts, and he has been convicted on separate occasions of involuntary manslaughter and aggravated assault. At trial, D insisted that he remembered nothing. A Dr. confirmed D's epilepsy and that D was having a seizure at the time of the attack. D was sentenced to 3-9 years. On appeal, D alleges: (1) that his sanity was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) that the court erred in giving the usual insanity instruction when his defense was that he suffered an epileptic seizure at the time the offenses were allegedly committed; (3) that his two convictions are for multiple offenses committed during a single course of conduct; and (4) that the sentence imposed by the court is excessive.