# People v. Hope

> Illinois Supreme Court · October 29, 1998 · 184 Ill. 2d 39

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9529495

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. EDGAR HOPE, Appellant
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 29, 1998
- **Citations:** 184 Ill. 2d 39; 234 Ill. Dec. 379; 702 N.E.2d 1282; 1998 Ill. LEXIS 1574
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Bilandic
- **Judges:** Harrison, Miller, Bilandic
- **Cited by:** 35 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9529495

## Opinion text

JUSTICE BILANDIC, also concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the State may not, on remand, present the victim impact testimony of Alvin Thompson and Vernita Wyckliffe. For the reasons expressed by my colleague, Justice Miller, I believe that the State should not be precluded from ever introducing victim impact evidence which relates to a crime other than the one for which the defendant is being sentenced. I do not believe, however, that all victim impact evidence relating to other crimes should automatically be admissible. Rather, given the nature of this type of evidence, the trial court should exercise its discretion to allow this type of evidence sparingly, making sure that the evidence is not too attenuated to be relevant to the sentencing decision in the instant case. See People v. Hope, 168 Ill. 2d 1, 41 (1995) (evaluation of relevance and reliability is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge). In this case, the challenged victim impact evidence related to a murder and an attempted murder committed by defendant less than one month prior to his commission of murder and attempted murder in this case. Under these circumstances, I would hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the introduction of victim impact evidence relating to these crimes.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9529495. Public record. Not legal advice.