# People v. Brooks

> Illinois Supreme Court · June 17, 1999 · 187 Ill. 2d 91

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533904

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. TERRENCE BROOKS, Appellant
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 17, 1999
- **Citations:** 187 Ill. 2d 91; 240 Ill. Dec. 607; 718 N.E.2d 88; 1999 Ill. LEXIS 678
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Harrison
- **Judges:** Bilandic, Freeman, Harrison, McMORROW, Rathje
- **Cited by:** 246 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/9533904

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that the witness had an “adequate opportunity to view the assailant,” even though the shooting lasted only “ ‘a second or so’ ” because the witness testified that “he had known defendant *** for a number of years,” reasoning that this was the “strongest factor weighing…
- stating that even if a defendant can meet his burden and prove that an identification was suggestive, the State may overcome this showing by clear and convincing evidence that the eyewitness identified the defendant based on his or her independent recollection of the incident
- finding a witness’s prior acquaintance with a suspect was “particularly important” and that it rendered other factors, including the length of time between the offense and the identification and suggestive police procedures, “less relevant”
- finding that the testimony at the pretrial hearing and at trial provided a sufficient account of events to determine whether the identification had an independent basis, rendering it unnecessary to remand for further proceedings
- stating that the witness’s acquaintance with the defendant was “the strongest factor” supporting the witness’s identification of the defendant, where the witness had known the defendant for about four years

## Opinion text

JUSTICE HARRISON, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I, agree that Brooks’ convictions should not be disturbed, but would set aside his sentence of death. For the reasons set forth in my dissent in People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179 (1998), this state’s present death penalty law does not meet the requirements of the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amends. VIII, XIV) or article I, section 2, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2). Accordingly, we should vacate Brooks’ death sentence, and he should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 9-1(j). Because Brooks has been found guilty of murdering more than one victim, the term of his imprisonment must be natural life. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 1005—8—1(a)(1)(c).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533904. Public record. Not legal advice.