# People v. Moss

> Illinois Supreme Court · October 18, 2001 · 205 Ill. 2d 139

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9744522

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. SANANTONE MOSS, Appellant
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 18, 2001
- **Citations:** 205 Ill. 2d 139; 275 Ill. Dec. 444; 792 N.E.2d 1217; 2001 Ill. LEXIS 1427
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McMORROW
- **Judges:** Garman, McMorrow, Freeman, Kilbride, Harrison
- **Cited by:** 106 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/9744522

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that calling the defendant’s experts “ ‘cash for trash doctors’ ” was “completely unacceptable”
- finding defendant’s poor adjustment to incarceration “as evidenced by his possession of weapons and his receipt of 44 disciplinary tickets while in prison” relevant to the comparison of criminal records of the codefendants

## Opinion text

JUSTICE McMORROW, specially concurring:
I join Justice Freeman’s opinion to the extent it holds that customary plain error analysis should be applied to defendant’s arguments concerning prosecutorial misconduct at trial and sentencing.
Also, like Justice Freeman, I believe that the remarks made by the prosecutors during closing argument at defendant’s sentencing hearing must be strongly rebuked. Capital sentencing proceedings impose upon the jury the intellectually and emotionally demanding task of determining whether or not a defendant is eligible for and deserving of death, the most severe of all state-sanctioned punishments. In such a proceeding, where the outcome is literally a matter of life or death, there can be no place for sarcasm or improper name-calling. The matter is far too portentous, and the risk that the jury might be swayed by passion or prejudice is far too real, to conclude otherwise.
Given the horrific nature of capital offenses, it is understandable that a prosecutor’s emotions may run high. But, “[n]o matter how deplorable the crime in issue or how inadequate the defense theories may be perceived by the prosecution, the larger policies of fair trial and proper courtroom decorum inveigh against the type of prosecutorial remarks and conduct that occurred here. Such behavior benefits no one, not the people of Illinois who are represented by the prosecutor, not the victim’s families, and certainly not the individuals whose sole transgression was to give testimony on behalf of the defense.” People v. Kidd, 175 Ill. 2d 1, 58 (McMorrow, J., specially concurring, joined by Freeman, J.).
The prosecutorial remarks in this case were unprofessional and debased the sentencing proceeding. Nevertheless, having carefully considered the remarks in the context of the entire proceeding, I am constrained to conclude that the comments do not rise to the level of plain error. Thus, I join the majority in holding that defendant’s death sentence should not be disturbed. I emphasize, however, my strong disapproval of the remarks at issue in this case. I caution prosecutors not to make these comments again, and I urge judges to vigorously guard against such unprofessional conduct.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9744522. Public record. Not legal advice.