# People v. Pulliam

> Illinois Supreme Court · April 17, 1997 · 176 Ill. 2d 261

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9725495

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. LATASHA PULLIAM, Appellant
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 17, 1997
- **Citations:** 176 Ill. 2d 261; 223 Ill. Dec. 610; 680 N.E.2d 343; 1997 Ill. LEXIS 44
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Harrison
- **Judges:** Heiple, Harrison
- **Cited by:** 61 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/9725495

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that error does not require reversal where it is harmless and an evidentiary error is harmless if properly admitted evidence is so overwhelming that no fair-minded juror could reasonably have voted to acquit the defendant
- finding court in its discretion could refuse to answer juror's question regarding an inability to reach a unanimous verdict and instead respond "You have your instructions. Keep deliberating"
- finding the error in admitting a book entitled “Force of Sex” was harmless where the properly admitted evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming

## Opinion text

JUSTICE HARRISON, dissenting:
The trial court should not have admitted testimony from the state psychologist concerning statements made by defendant during a 1991 court-ordered examination to determine her fitness to stand trial. The statements made by defendant during the fitness examination fell squarely within the terms of section 104 — 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/104 — 14 (West 1992)), and their admission was specifically prohibited.
Although trial counsel failed to make the appropriate objections to the psychologist’s testimony, admission of that testimony denied defendant her right to a fair trial and constituted plain error. The majority invokes Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 , 97 L. Ed. 2d 336 , 107 S. Ct. 2906 (1987), to avoid this conclusion, but nothing in Buchanan legitimizes the introduction at trial and sentencing of statements made by a defendant during a court-ordered fitness hearing where, as here, a statute expressly prohibits their use.
The due process clause of the fourteenth amendment (U.S. Const., amend. XIV) prohibits the prosecution of a person who is unfit to stand trial. People v. Brandon, 162 Ill. 2d 450, 455 (1994). The legislature has enacted a detailed statutory scheme to ensure that that prohibition is honored, and section 104 — 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an integral part of that scheme. In ruling as it has, the majority has rendered section 104 — 14 a nullity. By so doing, it has taken something that was intended to protect the integrity of the criminal process and subverted it into a trap for defendants who may be suffering from mental or psychological impairments.
From this day forward, any defendant who cooperates with a court-ordered fitness hearing does so at his own peril. Under the majority’s analysis, trial courts will be free to disregard the terms of section 104 — 14 without risk of reversal, even where a timely objection is made, just as long as there is enough other evidence to support a conviction. For my colleagues, it is simply a question of the ends justifying the means. In my view, the concept of a fair trial involves considerably more than that.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial. Accordingly, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9725495. Public record. Not legal advice.