Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

People v. Blake

522 N.E.2d 822 (1988)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,600+ case briefs...

People v. Blake

Illinois Appellate Court

522 N.E.2d 822 (1988)

Facts

Levi Blake (defendant) claimed his cousins Willie and Anthony Dixon forced him to break into a house with them. The three smoked marijuana and drank the night before. Blake was intoxicated and fell asleep several times. About six the next morning, Blake was still drunk and confused and thought his cousins were walking him home. The Dixons allegedly had a pig-latin conversation and then broke into a house where two women were upstairs. Meanwhile, Willie allegedly ordered Blake at gunpoint not to leave. Blake stated he heard a woman scream and said he would do anything if his cousins did not hurt the women or point the gun at him. Willie came back outside and made Blake help carry stolen items to an alley. When the men returned to the house, Willie allegedly ordered Blake inside to act as lookout downstairs while Willie went upstairs, saying he would start shooting if Blake left. When police arrived, Blake hid while his cousins fled the scene. Willie shot at an officer, who returned fire, killing Willie. Anthony jumped from a porch roof and was quickly apprehended. Police searched the house but did not find Blake until that afternoon. Blake was charged with home invasion, armed robbery, and residential burglary. Blake testified and requested jury instructions on the defenses of necessity and compulsion. The judge refused to give a necessity instruction and instead gave a compulsion instruction, modified slightly to include threats of harm to someone else. The jury convicted. Blake appealed, arguing that instruction did not adequately convey he was acting to save the women in the house. Moreover, unlike compulsion, necessity did not require an imminent threat of harm, meaning the jury could have rejected Blake’s compulsion defense solely because Blake was not imminently threatened while he remained outside.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Stouder, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 519,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership