# People v. Ashford

> Illinois Supreme Court · February 11, 1988 · 121 Ill. 2d 55

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9711948

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. JAMES B. ASHFORD, Appellant
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 11, 1988
- **Citations:** 121 Ill. 2d 55; 117 Ill. Dec. 171; 520 N.E.2d 332; 1988 Ill. LEXIS 37
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Simon
- **Judges:** Clark, Simon
- **Cited by:** 93 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/9711948

## Opinion text

JUSTICE SIMON, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the portion of the majority opinion that affirms the defendant’s conviction. I believe, however, that the defendant’s waiver of his right to be sentenced by a jury was not knowingly and intelligently made, and I therefore dissent from the affirmance of the death sentence. The defendant was not told prior to waiving a jury for sentencing that a jury’s decision to impose the death penalty must be unanimous. As I have stated before (People v. Hall (1986), 114 Ill. 2d 376, 422 (Simon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); People v. Buggs (1986), 112 Ill. 2d 284, 296 (Simon, J., specially concurring)), fundamental fairness requires that trial judges correctly inform all capital defendants of the unanimity requirement before accepting jury waivers at death sentencing hearings.
This court has previously taken the position that it is the responsibility of the defendant’s attorney to be certain that the defendant understood the rule and that his waiver was knowing and intelligent. (People v. Morgan (1986), 112 Ill. 2d 111, 142 .) This case, however, illustrates the problem with that approach because there is no evidence in the record that the defendant’s attorney explained the unanimity requirement to him. I would require a trial judge to inform a defendant that if he chooses to have his sentence determined by a jury, the death penalty can be imposed only if all 12 jurors agree that it should be and that if even one juror disagrees, the death penalty cannot be imposed.
I also dissent from the imposition of the death sentence for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in People v. Lewis (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 129, 179 (Simon, J., dissenting), based on my belief that the Illinois death penalty statute is unconstitutional and that the death sentence in this case should be vacated. See also People v. Johnson (1987), 119 Ill. 2d 119, 152-53 (Simon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and authorities cited therein.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9711948. Public record. Not legal advice.