APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Montgomery County; the Hon.
PAUL M. HICKMAN, Judge, presiding.
MR. JUSTICE KARNS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:
Defendant, Melvin Dyer, was convicted at a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County of the offense of aggravated battery in violation of section 12-4(a) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 12-4(a)).
Defendant raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the jury was properly instructed on the issue of self-defense and (2) whether the closing argument of the prosecutor deprived defendant of a fair trial. Defendant has failed to file any post-trial motion, oral or written; therefore, the issues are deemed waived for purpose of this appeal. (People v. Hammond, 48 Ill. App.3d 707, 362 N.E.2d 1361 (5th Dist. 1977).) Nevertheless, we will discuss the issues.
1, 2 The court, over defendant's objection, gave the following issue instruction:
"To sustain the charge of aggravated battery, the State must prove the following proposition:
That the defendant knowingly or intentionally caused great bodily harm to Leroy Roehl.
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that this proposition has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant guilty.
If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all the evidence that this proposition has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant not guilty."
Defendant's objection was that the instruction forecloses jury consideration of justification. The court gave defendant's tendered instruction, IPI Criminal No. 24.06, use of force in defense of person, which states:
"A person is justified in the use of force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself against the imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm to himself * * *."
It has long been held that the jury is properly instructed if the series of instructions construed as a whole, fully and properly inform the jury of the law applicable to the case. (People v. Allen, 35 Ill. App.3d 342, 341 N.E.2d 431 (5th Dist. 1976).) We hold that the above-quoted instructions when considered with IPI Criminal No. 2.03, presumption of innocence, and the State's burden of proof instruction sufficiently informed the jury of the law applicable to the defendant's theory of defense, self-defense, and the State's burden of proof.
3 Defendant's second contention of error is more difficult to resolve. Defendant alleges that the following statement in the prosecutor's closing argument was so prejudicial that he was denied a fair trial:
"* * * the defendant was under arrest at the Litchfield Police building and that the defendant screamed and hollered and became beligerant and became more violent even after Deputy Wilson came to take him over to the County Jail. He jumped up on a chair and said he was a killer and threatened to get them all. Put up an abusive stream of language throughout and laughed at the fact that he was in jail. Also Mr. Shade observed when he first came to the police station that Mr. Dryer was not injured in anyway or any manner, no cuts or bruises or anything like that on his face. Deputy Chuck Wilson testified ...