# People v. Nieves

> Illinois Supreme Court · July 6, 2000 · 192 Ill. 2d 487

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9712089

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. HECTOR NIEVES, Appellant
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 6, 2000
- **Citations:** 192 Ill. 2d 487; 249 Ill. Dec. 760; 737 N.E.2d 150; 2000 Ill. LEXIS 994
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Harrison
- **Judges:** Rathje, Harrison
- **Cited by:** 139 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/9712089

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding the defendant waived reliance on plain error review where he “neither argue[d] that the evidence was closely balanced nor explain[ed] why the error [was] so severe that it must be remedied to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.”
- finding that the defendant waived his plain-error argument where his argument merely consisted of "a single sentence asking us to employ the plain-error rule because the right to a fair death penalty sentencing hearing is a fundamental right."
- finding that the Strickland standard applied where defense counsel “extensively cross-examined State’s witnesses, called a witness in support of his theory of defense, and forcefully argued that defendant should be found ‘not guilty’ ”
- finding that the defendant waived his argument on appeal that his constitutional right to a fair death penalty sentencing hearing was violated by the introduction of hearsay evidence where he failed to object in the trial court
- finding that the failure to argue “that the evidence was closely balanced [or] explain [ ] why the error is so severe that it must be remedied to preserve the integrity of the judicial process” waived plain error on appeal

## Opinion text

CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree that Nieves’ murder conviction should not be disturbed. In my view, however, his sentence of death cannot be allowed to stand. For the reasons set forth in my partial concurrence and partial dissent in People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179 (1998), the Illinois death penalty law violates the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amends. VIII, XIV) and article I, section 2, of the Illinois Constitution (111. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2). Nieves’ sentence of death should therefore be vacated and he should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. 720 ILCS 5/9 — l(j) (West 1992). Because Nieves has previously been convicted of first degree murder, the term of his imprisonment must be natural life. 730 ILCS 5/5 — 8—l(a)(l)(c)(i) (West 1992).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9712089. Public record. Not legal advice.