FOURTH DIVISION
December 30, 2004

JUSTICE THEIS delivered the opinion of the court:

Following a jury trial, defendant, Lavelle Hudson, was convicted of first-degree murderand sentenced to 22 years' imprisonment. On appeal, he contends that (1) he was denied hisconstitutional rights to due process and trial by jury because the trial court gave the non-IllinoisPattern Jury Instruction (IPI) on proximate causation in felony murder tendered by the State,which, he claims, constituted an incorrect statement of the law, instead of the instruction offeredby defense counsel; and (2) his conviction must be vacated because the shooting of the decedentwas legally justified. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

Defendant, who was 15 years' old at the time of the offense, was charged as an adult withmultiple counts of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and burglary in connection with the July30, 1998, fatal shooting of Chrispin Thomas, defendant's co-felon, at the Fresh Barbershop inChicago. The following evidence was adduced at defendant's trial. About 4:45 p.m. on the dayin question, Thomas and defendant entered the barbershop brandishing handguns. Thomasannounced that this was a "stick-up," and ordered the people in the shop to throw their moneyonto the floor. Defendant remained by the door with his weapon as the people in the shopcomplied with Thomas' order.

When Thomas turned to begin gathering the money from the floor, off-duty ChicagoPolice Officer Ricky Bean, who had been getting a haircuit at the time, jumped out of his chair,drew his service revolver, announced his office, and ordered Thomas to drop his gun. Thomasdid not comply, but rather, turned and pointed his weapon at the officer. Officer Bean fired onceat Thomas and ordered him again to drop the gun. Thomas transferred his weapon into his otherhand and tried to point it at the officer. Officer Bean continued to order Thomas to drop hisweapon and fired two more shots at him. This time, Thomas complied.

Officer Bean grabbed Thomas and turned to defendant, who was still picking up moneyfrom the floor. The officer ordered defendant to drop his gun. Instead of complying, defendantpointed his weapon at Officer Bean. The officer fired once at defendant, and defendant fled thebarbershop. The people in the shop then called 911 to request more police and an ambulance forThomas.

Shortly thereafter, Thomas died on the scene. The medical examiner determined that hedied of multiple gunshot wounds and ruled his death a homicide.

Police ultimately located defendant at Roseland Community Hospital, where he was beingtreated for a gunshot wound to his right leg. After being advised of his rights as a juvenileoffender, defendant chose to speak to the police and related substantially the same chronology ofevents. Defendant's statement was later reduced to writing by an assistant State's Attorney. Defendant also testified to these events at trial and admitted that he had pled guilty to two otherarmed robberies of barbershops in Chicago, both of which occurred a few weeks prior to the July30, 1998, incident.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty on one count of felony murder. The courtsubsequently sentenced defendant to 22 years' imprisonment.

Defendant first contends that he was denied his constitutional rights to due process andtrial by jury when the court gave the non-IPI jury instruction on proximate causation in felonymurder offered by the State instead of the instruction offered by the defense. The State respondsthat the court correctly instructed the jury as to the elements of felony murder.

The purpose of jury instructions is to provide the jurors with the legal principles applicableto the evidence presented so that they may reach a correct verdict. People v. Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d 1,8, 805 N.E.2d 1190, 1194 (2004). Supreme Court Rule 451(a) (177 Ill. 2d R. 451(a)) providesthat whenever the IPI contain an applicable jury instruction, and the court determines that the juryshould be instructed on the subject after giving due consideration to the facts and law, "the [IPIinstruction] shall be used unless the court determines that it does not accurately state the law." Where there is no IPI jury instruction on a subject on which the court determines the jury shouldbe instructed, the court has the discretion to give a nonpattern instruction. People v. Ramey, 151Ill. 2d 498, 536, 603 N.E.2d 519, 534 (1992). Therefore, we will not disturb a trial court'sdecision to instruct a jury using a non-IPI instruction absent an abuse of that discretion. People v.Pollock, 202 Ill. 2d 189, 211, 780 N.E.2d 669, 682 (2002). Whether the court has abused itsdiscretion in giving a particular nonpattern instruction will depend on whether that instruction wasan accurate, simple, brief, impartial, and nonargumentative statement of the applicable law. 177Ill. 2d R. 451(a); Pollock, 202 Ill. 2d at 211, 780 N.E.2d at 682.

Illinois adheres to the so-called "proximate cause" theory of liability for felony murder. People v. Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d 462, 465, 687 N.E.2d 973, 975 (1997). Under this theory, "liabilityattaches 'for any death proximately resulting from the unlawful activity- notwithstanding the factthat the killing was by one resisting the crime.'" People v. Dekens, 182 Ill. 2d 247, 249, 695N.E.2d 474, 475 (1998), quoting Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d at 465, 687 N.E.2d at 9775-76. Inaddition, a defendant is not relieved of liability for a homicide where the one resisting the crimecauses the death of defendant's co-felon. Dekens, 182 Ill. 2d at 252, 695 N.E.2d at 477.

In the present case, defendant was charged with felony murder based on Officer Bean'sfatal shooting of Thomas, defendant's co-felon, in resisting the armed robbery. Thus, in order tosustain a conviction of felony murder in this case, the State was required to prove that Thomas'death was the direct and proximate result of the armed robbery in which defendant participated. See Dekens, 182 Ill. 2d at 252, 695 N.E.2d at 477.

The relevant IPI instruction on felony murder provides that:

"A person commits the offense of first degree murder when he kills an individual[without lawful justification] if, in performing the acts which cause the death,

***

[4] he [(is attempting to commit) (is committing)] the offense of _____."  IPI, Criminal, No. 7.01 (4th ed. 2000) (hereinafter IPI Criminal 4th).

We initially note that this instruction correctly states the law applicable to situations wherethe defendant, or one for whom the defendant is accountable, kills an individual during thecommission of a forcible felony. See 720 ILCS 5/9-1 (West 2002); People v. Jenkins, 190 Ill.App. 3d 115, 128, 545 N.E.2d 986, 995 (1989). However, as the parties agree, this instructiondoes not accurately state the law applicable to the circumstances present in this case. Defendantdid not perform the acts which caused Thomas' death, but rather, participated in an armedrobbery attempt that culminated in the fatal shooting of his co-felon by one of the intended victimsof the armed robbery. Therefore, the trial court properly exercised its discretion to give a non-IPIinstruction. People v. Jackson, 331 Ill. App. 3d 279, 290, 771 N.E.2d 982, 992 (2002) ("A trialcourt abuses its discretion in declining to give a non-IPI instruction when the jury is left todeliberate with instructions that are unclear, misleading or contain inaccurate statements of law."). Accordingly, we must determine whether the trial court's decision to give the instruction offeredby the State constituted an abuse of discretion. See Pollock, 202 Ill. 2d at 211, 780 N.E.2d at682.

At the jury instruction conference, both parties submitted modified versions of IPICriminal 4th No. 7.01. Defendant submitted the following instruction:

"A person commits the offense of first degree murder when he commits theoffense of attempt [to commit] armed robbery and during *** the commission ofthat offense, the death of an individual is [the] direct and foreseeable consequenceof the commission or attempt to commit that offense, and the defendantcontemplated or should have contemplated that his actions could result in death."

The instruction submitted by the State read:

"A person commits the offense of first degree murder when he commits theoffense of attempt [to commit] armed robbery, and during the course of thecommission of the offense of attempt [to commit] armed robbery[,] he sets inmotion a chain of events which cause the death of an individual.

It is immaterial whether the killing in such a case is intentional oraccidental, or committed by a confederate without the connivance of the defendantor even by a third person trying to prevent the commission of the felony."

Following argument, the court chose to give the State's instruction. The court indicated that itdid not "believe that the felony murder doctrine requires the State to prove that the defendantcontemplated or should have contemplated that his actions would result in death," and thatLowery and other relevant cases "clearly indicate that if a person is involved in a forcible felony,and during the course of the commission of that forcible felony he sets in motion a chain of eventswhich cause the death of an individual, he is responsible for any deaths that flow from hisactions."

Defendant claims that the State's instruction failed to require that the death be the "directand foreseeable consequence" of the initial forcible felony. This omission, defendant maintains,lessened the State's burden of proof and permitted the jury to find defendant guilty of murdereven where the death was not a proximate result of his actions. We disagree.

In Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d at 469-70, 687 N.E.2d at 977-78, the supreme court definitivelyheld that under the proximate cause theory of felony murder, the test for liability is whether thevictim's death was a "direct and foreseeable consequence" of the defendant's forcible felony. Inapplying that test to find the defendant in that case liable for the murder of an innocent bystanderkilled by the intended victim of an armed robbery, the court observed that, "when a felon'sattempt to commit a forcible felony sets in motion a chain of events which were or should havebeen within his contemplation when the motion was initiated, he should be held responsible forany death which by direct and almost inevitable sequence results from the initial criminal act." Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d at 467, 687 N.E.2d at 976. The court further noted that a defendant does nothave to anticipate the precise sequence of events that lead to the homicide. Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d at470, 687 N.E.2d at 978. In Dekens, 182 Ill. 2d at 254, 695 N.E.2d at 477-78, the courtreaffirmed this principle, explaining that "the focus of the proximate cause theory is on the chainof events set in motion by defendant."

In determining whether the instruction given in the present case properly communicatedthis concept to the jury, we find this court's recent decisions in People v. Martinez, 342 Ill. App.3d 849, 795 N.E.2d 870 (2003), and People v. Burnom, 338 Ill. App. 3d 495, 790 N.E.2d 14(2003), to be instructive. In Martinez, a defendant convicted of felony murder after his co-felonwas killed by the intended victim of the crime appealed contending that the modified versions ofIPI 5.03A and 7.02 given to the jury at his trial conflicted. Martinez, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 857, 795N.E.2d at 877. IPI 5.03A was modified to include the requirement that "the deceased was killedas a foreseeable consequence of the parties committing that unlawful act," and the modifiedversion of IPI 7.02 required that "the defendant, or one for whose conduct he is legallyresponsible, performed the acts which ultimately caused the death of [the victim]." Martinez, 342Ill. App. 3d at 857 n.2, 795 N.E.2d at 877 n.2. The court disagreed with defendant and foundthat these instructions, as a whole, fully and fairly covered the law in light of the facts of the case. Martinez, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 858, 795 N.E.2d at 877. In doing so, the court recognized that themodifications to the accountability instruction made clear that the co-felon's death had to be aforeseeable consequence of defendant or his co-felon actions in committing the forcible felony. Martinez, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 858, 795 N.E.2d at 877.

In Burnom, a defendant, also convicted of felony murder for the homicide of his co-felon,appealed his conviction claiming that the trial court erred in responding to a jury question. Burnom, 338 Ill. App. 3d at 499, 790 N.E.2d at 18. The jury was given a modified instructionproviding that in order to sustain a first-degree murder conviction, it was not necessary for theState to prove intent to kill the decedent, but rather, it was sufficient if the jury found thatdefendant and his associate, during the commission of their forcible felony, "were met withresistance which resulted in the deceased *** being killed." Burnom, 338 Ill. App. 3d at 508-09,790 N.E.2d at 26. The jury sent a note asking the court to "[p]rovide a definition of 'resistance,'"and asking whether it was alright to consider whether the resistance was excessive. Burnom, 338Ill. App. 3d at 509, 790 N.E.2d at 26. The court responded that the jury should use theireveryday understanding of "resistance," and consider whether the resistance was foreseeable. Burnom, 338 Ill. App. 3d at 509, 790 N.E.2d at 26. This court found no error in that response. Burnom, 338 Ill. App. 3d at 509, 790 N.E.2d at 26. Thus, Martinez and Burnom illustrate two ofthe ways in which pattern instructions have been modified to instruct juries on proximatecausation in cases where defendants have been charged with the murder of their co-felons.

In the case at bar, we find that the modified version of IPI 7.01 given sufficientlycommunicated the concept of proximate causation to the jury to enable it to apply the proper lawto the facts. Although the phrase "direct and foreseeable consequence" may have been a moreprecise way of defining the concept of proximate causation, the phrase "sets in motion a chain ofevents" has also been used by the supreme court in characterizing this concept. The secondparagraph of the given instruction, apparently taken from the Committee Comments to section 9-1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Code) (720 ILCS Ann. 5/9-1, Committee Comments-1961, at 15(Smith-Hurd 2002)), completed the definition of proximate causation by providing examples todelineate when homicides committed by individuals other than the defendant would be consideredforeseeable consequences of forcible felonies. Thus, the instruction given was not an incorrectstatement of the law. See Dekens, 182 Ill. 2d at 254, 695 N.E.2d at 477-78; Lowery, 178 Ill. 2dat 467, 687 N.E.2d at 976. In addition, on the facts of the present case, these examples enabledthe jury to properly apply the difficult concept of proximate cause to determine that Thomas'homicide was a foreseeable result of defendant's participation in the attempted armed robbery. We further find the instruction to have been simple, brief, impartial, and free from argument. See177 Ill. 2d R. 451(a); Ramey, 151 Ill. 2d at 536, 603 N.E.2d at 534. Therefore, we cannot saythat the circuit court abused its discretion in choosing between the two offered instructions and ingiving the State's instruction. Nevertheless, we observe that based on the supreme court'srationale in Lowery, the best wording for an instruction on proximate causation in felony murderwould include either the phrase "direct and foreseeable consequence" or, alternatively, the phrase"sets into motion a chain of events which were or should have been within his contemplationwhen his actions were initiated."

Defendant next contends that the instruction he offered should have been chosen becauseit was a correct statement of the law. Specifically, defendant claims that his instruction wascorrect because it contained the phrase, "direct and foreseeable."

Although defendant's proposed instruction contained that phrase, we find that it imposedtoo strict a foreseeability requirement. As our discussion above shows, the first part ofdefendant's instruction accurately stated the law by requiring that the homicide be a direct andforeseeable consequence of defendant's actions. However, the last part of defendant's instructionimposed the additional requirement that "the defendant contemplated or should havecontemplated that his actions could result in death."

As the supreme court indicated in Lowery, defendant is only required to "set in motion achain of events which were or should have been within his contemplation." Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d at467, 687 N.E.2d at 976. Defendant is not required to contemplate that his actions would resultspecifically in death. People v. Causey, 341 Ill. App. 3d 759, 769, 793 N.E.2d 169, 178 (2003). Defendant is also not required to have anticipated the precise sequence of events that followed hisforcible felony. Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d at 470, 687 N.E.2d at 978; see also People v. Brackett, 117Ill. 2d 170, 180-81, 510 N.E.2d 877, 882 (1987) (defendant did not have to foresee that his victimwould die of asphyxiation while being fed in a nursing home following rape and beating). In thepresent case, it was sufficient for defendant to have contemplated that his actions would meetwith resistance and that a struggle would ensue. See Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d at 465-66, 687 N.E.2dat 976, quoting People v. Payne, 359 Ill. 246, 255, 194 N.E. 539, 543 (1939). Thus, becausedefendant's proposed instruction imposed the additional requirement that he contemplated orshould have contemplated that his actions would result in death, it constituted an incorrectstatement of the law, which should not have been given to the jury.

Defendant finally contends that his conviction must be vacated because the shooting ofThomas was legally justified by either Officer Bean's right to defend himself against the use ofdeadly force or the officer's right as a peace officer to use force in making an arrest. The Stateresponds that defendant is attempting to advance an "agency theory" of felony murder, underwhich a defendant is not liable for a killing attributable to someone resisting the felony. SeeLowery, 178 Ill. 2d at 466, 687 N.E.2d at 976.

In Martinez, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 855, 795 N.E.2d at 875, this court found an argumentvirtually identical to defendant's to be meritless. We recognized that our supreme court hasimplicitly rejected the notion that a third party's legal justification precludes a conviction forfelony murder in adhering to the proximate cause theory of liability and in finding felons liable forhomicides committed by third parties. Martinez, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 854-55, 795 N.E.2d at 874-75, discussing Dekens, 182 Ill. 2d at 252, 695 N.E.2d at 474. We ultimately found that thelanguage "without legal justification" contained in the introductory paragraph of section 9-1(a) ofthe Code (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a) (West 2002)) was not an element of felony murder. Martinez, 342Ill. App. 3d at 857, 795 N.E.2d at 876.

As we indicated above, the focus of the proximate cause theory of liability for felonymurder is "whether the defendant's actions set in motion a chain of events that ultimately causedthe death of the decedent." Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d at 473, 687 N.E.2d at 979. The focus is not onwho committed the actual killing. 720 ILCS Ann. 5/9-1, Committee Comments-1961, at 15(Smith-Hurd 2002). The public policy and legislative rationale behind this approach is to hold afelon responsible for the foreseeable consequences of his actions, including accidental homicidesand homicides committed by third parties, rather than to charge the felon or third party with first-degree murder under section 9-1(a)(1) or 9-1(a)(2) of the Code (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (2) (West2002)). Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d at 469, 687 N.E.2d at 977. Our supreme court has also made clearthat "[b]ecause of the extremely violent nature of felony murder, we seek the broadest boundspossible for the attachment of criminal liability." People v. Dennis, 181 Ill. 2d 87, 105, 692N.E.2d 325, 335 (1998).

We decline to depart from the rationale set forth by our supreme court here. Accordingly,we find that any legal justification Officer Bean had to use deadly force against Thomas wasirrelevant to the issue of whether defendant was guilty of felony murder.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

Affirmed.

QUINN, J., concurs.

REID, P.J., dissents.

PRESIDING JUSTICE REID, dissenting:

I dissent. "Supreme Court Rule 451(a) (134 Ill. 2d R. 451(a)) requires a trial court toinstruct the jury pursuant to the pattern criminal instructions, unless the trial court determines thatthe pattern instruction does not accurately state the law. (Citation.) Although a trial court shoulduse a pattern instruction if an appropriate one exists, the decision whether to give a non-patterninstructions remains a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court." People v. Goodman,347 Ill. App. 3d 278, 290 (2004), citing People v. Nutall, 312 Ill. App. 3d 620, 633 (2000). Therefore, "[t]he standard of review in determining whether a trial court's submission of anappropriate instruction is erroneous is an abuse of discretion." People v. Hall, 347 Ill. App. 3d429, 430 (2004), citing People v. Garcia, 188 Ill. 2d 265, 283 (1999). I agree with the majoritythat the test of whether the trial court has abused its discretion "will depend on whether thatinstruction was an accurate, simple, brief, impartial, and non-argumentative statement of the law." Slip op. at 4, citing 177 Ill. 2d R. 451(a) and Pollack, 202 Ill. 2d at 211, 780 N.E. 2d at 682. It isundisputed that the pattern instructions do not fit this particular factual situation. The disputebetween Hudson and the State involves which proffered instruction was appropriate. I say neitherwas appropriate.

This is a "reverse" felony murder case where a co-felon was killed by a would-be victim. Without judicial precedent, it would seem that the felony murder statute does not apply. "Section9-1(a)(3) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Code) provides that '[a] person who kills an individualwithout lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause thedeath *** he is attempting or committing a forcible felony other than second degree murder.' " People v. Belk, 203 Ill. 2d 187, 192 (2003), quoting 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(3) (West 1996). "Illinoisadheres to a proximate cause approach to felony-murder liability." People v. Johns, 345 Ill. App.3d 237, 242 (2003), citing People v. Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d 462 (1997). By that, "a felon isresponsible for the direct and foreseeable consequences of his actions." Belk, 203 Ill. 2d at 192,citing Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d at 470. "The purpose behind the felony-murder statute is to limit theviolence that accompanies the commission of forcible felonies, so that anyone engaged in suchviolence will be automatically subject to a murder prosecution should someone be killed duringthe commission of a forcible felony." Belk, 203 Ill. 2d at 192, citing People v. Shaw, 186 Ill. 2d301, 322 (1998), citing People v. Dennis, 181 Ill. 2d 87, 105 (1998). "While mere presence at thescene of an offense is not culpable, proof that the defendant was present during the commission ofa crime without opposing or disapproving it, that he maintained a close affiliation with theprincipal afterwards, and that he failed to report the crime are all factors that may be considered indetermining legal accountability." Belk, 203 Ill. 2d at 192, citing People v. Shaw, 186 Ill. 2d 301,322 (1998), citing People v. Dennis, 181 Ill. 2d 87, 105 (1998). "When a defendant's specificintent to aid a crime is proven, he is accountable for any crime that happens as a consequence ofthe intended crime." People v. Jackson, 333 Ill. App. 3d 962, 967 (2002), citing People v.O'Reilly, 250 Ill. App. 3d 622 (1993).

The Illinois Supreme Court explained in Lowery that "[i]t is unimportant that thedefendant did not anticipate the precise sequence of events that followed his robbery attempt. Weconclude that defendant's unlawful acts precipitated those events, and he is responsible for theconsequences." Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d at 470, citing People v. Chandler, 129 Ill. 2d 233, 248 (1989)and People v. Smith, 56 Ill. 2d 328, 333-34 (1974).

"The function of jury instructions is to convey to the jurors the law that applies to the factsso they can reach a correct conclusion." People v. Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d 1, 8 (2004), citing People v.Fuller, 205 Ill. 2d 308, 343 (2002). Courts of review have "reversed defendant's convictionbecause an omitted jury instruction 'removed from the jury's consideration a disputed issueessential to the determination of defendant's guilt or innocence.' " Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d at 8, quotingPeople v. Ogunsola, 87 Ill. 2d 216, 223 (1981).

There is no question that Hudson attached himself to Thomas in terms of them both beingculpable for the robbery. Both men entered into the barbershop, armed with handguns, intendingto commit robbery. Though he did not, and in fact could not have, used his gun, Hudson isaccountable for the direct and foreseeable consequences of the crime. However, the instructiongiven to the jury merely requires that he set in motion the events leading up to the death. TheIllinois Supreme Court has upheld a conviction where a shot fired by a police officer whileattempting to apprehend a defendant during a burglary that struck and killed another officer,where the commission of the burglary and the flight therefrom set in motion the pursuit by thearmed police officers. People v. Hickman, 59 Ill. 2d 89 (1974). However, Hickman also said thatthe fatal shot fired in opposition to the escape was a "direct and foreseeable consequence of thedefendants' actions." People v. Davis, 173 Ill. App. 3d 300, 309 (1988), quoting Hickman, 59 Ill.2d at 94. The Davis court explained that "[i]t did not say that death as a direct and foreseeableconsequence of the defendants' act was an element of the offense." Davis, 173 Ill. App. 3d at309. ("We do not believe that the factual observation made by the Hickman court that the killingin that case was, in fact, 'a direct and foreseeable action' may be raised to the stature of apronouncement of what is an essential element to be proved."). In fact, the Illinois SupremeCourt has historically held that "it was immaterial whether the killing was unintentional oraccidental." Davis, 173 Ill. App. 3d at 309,citing Smith, 56 Ill. 2d at 333-34. This would tend tolend support for the trial court's decision to go with the State's proffered instruction instead ofHudson's. The version Hudson submitted raises the "direct and foreseeable" language to the levelof an element of the offense. I believe the trial court was correct when it rejected the Hudsonversion on that basis. However, the State's version suffers from its own infirmities and, therefore,likewise should not have been used. The State's version failed to incorporate the language "directand foreseeable consequence." I would be inclined to support a version of the subject instruction reading as follows:

"A person commits the offense of first degree murder when hecommits the offense of attempt armed robbery and during thecourse of the commission of the offense of attempt armed robberyhe sets in motion a chain of events which cause the death of anindividual and the death is a direct and foreseeable consequence ofthe actions. It is immaterial whether the killing in such a case isintentional or accidental or committed by a confederate without theconnivance of the defendant or even by a third person trying toprevent the commission of the felony. To sustain the charge of firstdegree murder, the State must prove *** that the defendant, or onefor whose conduct he is legally responsible, was committing theoffense of attempt armed robbery; and, second, that during thecourse of the commission of the offense of attempt armed robbery,the defendant, or one for whose conduct he is legally responsible,set in motion a chain of events that, as a direct and foreseeableconsequence thereof, caused the death of Chrispin Thomas. And,third, that the defendant did not act under compulsion. If you findfrom your consideration of all the evidence that each one of thesepropositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, youshould find the defendant guilty. If you find from yourconsideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositionshas not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find thedefendant not guilty."

The majority concludes that even though the tendered instruction was not necessarily themost precise way to define the concept of proximate causation, it was sufficient. I disagree. Adefective instruction is a defective instruction. Courts simply cannot overlook jury instructiondefects that go to the heart of the case. The constitutional rights to trial by jury and due processof law cannot be ignored. I would reverse and remand this matter for a new trial with a proper"reverse" felony murder rule instruction as suggested above.