defendant received death sentence for his role in successive burglaries during each of which codefen-dant killed resident
How later courts described this case
- defendant received death sentence for his role in successive burglaries during each of which codefen-dant killed resident
- "Although initially equivocal and hesitant, [potential juror’s] final response indicated that he could view defendant’s trial as a 'separate case’ ”
- defendant received death *175 sentence for his role in successive burglaries during each of which codefen-dant killed resident
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I would affirm the conviction for murder, vacate the death penalty, and remand to the circuit court for the imposition of a sentence other than death. Clearly, under Enmund v. Florida (1982), 458 U.S. 782 , 73 L. Ed. 2d 1140 , 102 S. Ct. 3368 , the death penalty cannot be imposed in this case.
In his statement, after relating the manner in which he and Holman entered the victim’s mobile home, defendant stated, "I carried the T.V and gun out to the car. Then I heard a shot and Ricky came out and said he shot the old man.” There is no evidence that shows that defendant was present when the murder was committed or that he contemplated it. The majority opinion states, “ [Defendant certainly had reason to contemplate that a life would be taken, or that lethal force would be employed” (95 Ill. 2d at 51) but cites nothing in the record which supports this conjecture.
The majority makes reference to the fact that in the Cash murder defendant was the “triggerman.” (95 111. 2d at 50-51.) We are not here concerned with the question whether the death penalty may be imposed for the Cash murder. The question here is whether defendant may be sentenced to death on an accountability theory for the death of Mr. Biebel. Obviously, under Enmund, the answer is “No.”