# People v. Simpson

> Illinois Supreme Court · October 5, 1977 · 68 Ill. 2d 276

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9540606

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. JACK CANNON SIMPSON, Appellee
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 5, 1977
- **Citations:** 68 Ill. 2d 276; 12 Ill. Dec. 234; 369 N.E.2d 1248; 3 A.L.R. 4th 1094; 1977 Ill. LEXIS 381
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Ward
- **Judges:** Moran, Ward, Goldenhersh, Dooley
- **Cited by:** 34 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/9540606

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing the third-party exception to marital privilege

## Opinion text

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARD, dissenting:
I judge from a realistic appraisal of the circumstances here that the defendant’s wife, by prearrangement with the law enforcement officers, entered the room where the defendant was being questioned by an assistant State’s Attorney and two deputy sheriffs. One of the questioners then told Mrs. Simpson to state what the defendant had said to her about the killing. Mrs. Simpson stated that the defendant had told her he had shot Gwen, and very predictably the defendant responded to that statement. The prosecution and the majority say that this reply constituted a voluntary waiver of the privilege by the defendant. I consider that under the circumstances the defendant’s reaction to his wife’s statement before the officers who were questioning him cannot be considered a waiver. A waiver, of course, to be valid, must be voluntary and with understanding of what is being waived. There is no showing of understanding by the defendant of the privilege the majority holds that he waived. Beyond that, it is clear to me that the defendant’s response was secured through deliberate provocation or incitement. Under the circumstances here I think this was improper, not as a matter of punctilio but because the ruse practiced made the privilege meaningless.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9540606. Public record. Not legal advice.