closing argument was not improper where prosecutor argued that, if the jury failed to impose death, it would be a mockery of the law and the concept of justice
How later courts described this case
- closing argument was not improper where prosecutor argued that, if the jury failed to impose death, it would be a mockery of the law and the concept of justice
- holding that questions on certain “basic guarantees” are “essential” and “vital”
- the court found that to review an issue regarding the failure to give a jury instruction limiting the use of statements, to which defendant stipulated and on which he relied as part of his defense strategy, would permit the defendant to inject error into his own case — thus, the issue was waived by defendant’s failure to object at trial
- court ruled defendant could not inject error into case by insisting for first time on appeal that evidence to which he stipulated at trial regarding his sanity was improperly admitted as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE SIMON, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree that the convictions of murder should be affirmed in this case. However, for the reasons set forth in my separate opinions in People v. Lewis (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 129, 179 (Simon, J., dissenting), and in People v. Silagy (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 147, 184 (Simon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), I believe that the Illinois death penalty statute is unconstitutional and that the death sentence should be vacated.