Opinion

People v. Christiansen

  • 116 Ill. 2d 96
  • 107 Ill. Dec. 198
  • 506 N.E.2d 1253
  • 1987 Ill. LEXIS 168
Court
Illinois Supreme Court
Filed
Feb 20, 1987
Status
Published
Author
Simon
On the bench
Moran, Simon
Cited by
45 cases
Authority
More cited than 9.8%

recognizing that where a defendant fails to remain silent after being apprised of his right to do so and instead makes oral statements, the defendant has relinquished his rights under the fifth amendment and cannot claim that testimony indicating he was unwilling to subsequently memorialize his oral statements violated his right to remain silent

How later courts described this case

  • recognizing that where a defendant fails to remain silent after being apprised of his right to do so and instead makes oral statements, the defendant has relinquished his rights under the fifth amendment and cannot claim that testimony indicating he was unwilling to subsequently memorialize his oral statements violated his right to remain silent
  • stating the rule that this court “will ‘not lightly overturn the findings of the trial court, particularly when they are amply supported by the record’ ” applies to findings made during the aggravation and mitigation phase of the death penalty hearing
  • supreme court will not lightly overturn trial court’s findings during aggravation and mitigation phase of death penalty hearing
  • death penalty appropriate despite mitigating evidence of emotional and mental disturbance, alcoholism, drug addiction, poor health, deprived childhood, and remorse

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

JUSTICE SIMON, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree that the convictions should be affirmed. However, for the reasons set forth in my separate opinions in People v. Lewis (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 129, 179 (Simon, J., dissenting), in People v. Silagy (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 147, 184 (Simon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and in People v. Albanese (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 504, 549 (Simon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), I believe that the Illinois death penalty statute is unconstitutional and that the death sentence in this case should be vacated. See also United States ex rel. Lewis v. Lane (C.D. Ill. Jan. 8, 1987), No. 86 — 2086, slip op. at 29 (expressing “grave doubts” over the constitutionality of the Illinois death penalty statute); Note, Stare Decisis and the Illinois Death Penalty, 1986 U. Ill. L. Rev. 177 .

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.