holding that where a witness testifies - 20 - No. 1-11-1653 he previously identified an offender and that witness has been cross-examined, a third party may testify that he heard or saw that witness identify the offender
How later courts described this case
- holding that where a witness testifies - 20 - No. 1-11-1653 he previously identified an offender and that witness has been cross-examined, a third party may testify that he heard or saw that witness identify the offender
- holding that where a witness testifies that he previously identified an offender and that witness has been cross-examined, a third party may testify that he heard or saw that witness identify the offender
- holding that where a witness testifies he previously identified an offender and that witness has been cross-examined, a third party may testify that he heard or saw that witness identify the offender
- concluding that feticide statute does not govern abortion but "seeks to protect a pregnant mother and her unborn child from the intentional wrongdoing of a third party”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE SIMON, dissenting:
Relying on People v. Erickson (1987), 117 Ill. 2d 271 , the court holds that the rule of Daley v. Hett (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 75 , which prohibited Witherspooning a jury in a murder case where the defendant had voluntarily waived the jury for sentencing, cannot be applied retroactively to a case pending on direct review when Hett was decided. The majority also follows Erickson in concluding that the trial court’s failure to abide by the Hett principles did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. As I explained in my dissenting opinion in Erickson, the retroactivity question is not implicated here since there has been no change in the law. And even if we do consider retroactivity, the Hett rule should be applied to cases, like this one, still subject to direct review. Injecting the emotional death penalty question into voir dire where the jurors will have no part in determining the sentence is completely unjustified and requires reversal.
CHIEF JUSTICE CLARK joins in this dissent.