## Facts

- Robert Gahan was killed after being beaten and set on fire.
- David Crane became a suspect and was later arrested in New Mexico on misdemeanor traffic charges; he was held as a fugitive based on an Illinois parole violation and outstanding warrant.
- Illinois detectives interviewed Crane in New Mexico, and Crane described that Gahan offered him a ride, they smoked marijuana, and Gahan began choking him.
- Crane stated he struck Gahan repeatedly with numchucks until Gahan fell; Crane believed Gahan was dead.
- Crane took Gahan’s car to a friend, and then returned and poured gasoline on Gahan and set him on fire to destroy evidence.
- Crane later stated he heard Gahan may have been alive when burned, and he cried upon hearing that.
- Illinois charged Crane with two counts of murder alleging he beat and burned Gahan, causing death, with alternative mental states (intent to kill/do great bodily harm; or knowledge of a strong probability of death/great bodily harm).
- At trial, Crane relied on self-defense as to the beating and mistake of fact as to the burning (belief Gahan was already dead); the court instructed on self-defense but refused a mistake-of-fact instruction.
- A jury convicted Crane and he received a 40-year sentence; the appellate court reversed for instructional error, and the State appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by refusing a mistake-of-fact jury instruction where there was some evidence Crane believed Gahan was dead when he set the fire.
2. Whether Crane’s request for counsel concerning unrelated New Mexico matters barred Illinois detectives from interrogating him about the Illinois murder while he was in New Mexico custody.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s reversal and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held it was reversible error to refuse a mistake-of-fact instruction because there was some evidence supporting Crane’s claim that he believed Gahan was dead when he burned the body.
- The court rejected suppression based on any request for counsel regarding New Mexico offenses, concluding that such a request did not bar questioning by Illinois officers about the Illinois homicide.

## Legal Principles

- When a recognized defense is supported by some evidence, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that presents that defense for the jury’s consideration.
- It is not sufficient to instruct only on the offense’s mental-state elements when a supported mistake-of-fact defense would negate the required mens rea; the jury must be told the defense is legally available.
- A request for counsel tied to one set of charges does not automatically extend to interrogation about a different offense; the right to counsel in this context is offense-specific.

## Conclusion

Because evidence supported Crane’s claim that he set the fire under an honest mistaken belief that the victim was already dead, the jury should have been instructed on mistake of fact; the failure to do so required reversal and a new trial, while the out-of-state counsel request did not independently bar Illinois murder questioning.


People v. Crane, 585 N.E.2d 99 (Ill. 1991)