# People v. Ballard

> Illinois Supreme Court · December 2, 2002 · 206 Ill. 2d 151

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9720753

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. MARK BALLARD, Appellant
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 2, 2002
- **Citations:** 206 Ill. 2d 151; 276 Ill. Dec. 538; 794 N.E.2d 788
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Harrison
- **Judges:** Freeman, McMorrow, Harrison, Kilbride
- **Cited by:** 105 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/9720753

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that while section 109– 1(a) “requires that an arrestee be presented to a judge ‘without unnecessary delay,’ noncompliance therewith does not, by itself, obviate a confession or render an otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible at trial. Rather, such delay is merely…

## Opinion text

CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON, dissenting:
The proceedings which culminated in Ballard’s convictions and sentence of death were fatally flawed because they did not comport with the new rules enacted by our court governing the conduct of cases in which the State is seeking the death penalty. For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in People v. Hickey, 204 Ill. 2d 585, 631-36 (2001) (Harrison, C.J., dissenting), the procedures contained in those rules are indispensable for achieving an accurate determination of innocence or guilt and are applicable to all capital cases now coming before us. Because Ballard was tried, convicted and sentenced without the benefit of the new rules, his convictions and death sentence should be vacated, and the cause should be remanded to the circuit court for a new trial.
Even if Ballard were not entitled to the benefit of the new rules, his sentence of death could not 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 is void and unenforceable because it 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). Absent the new rules, there is no basis for altering that conclusion. At a minimum, Ballard’s sentence of death should therefore be vacated, and he should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. 720 ILCS 5/9 — l(j) (West 1996).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9720753. Public record. Not legal advice.