# People v. Moss

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9744524

## 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:** Dissent by Harrison
- **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/9744524

## 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

CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON, dissenting:
While this matter was pending on direct review, our court adopted a comprehensive set of new rules governing the conduct of cases in which the State is seeking the death penalty. With certain exceptions, the new rules took effect March 1, 2001. Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 6 (March 21, 2001). For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in People v. Hickey, 204 Ill. 2d 585, 631-36 (2001) (Harrison, C.J., dissenting), the procedures contained in the new rules are indispensable for achieving an accurate determination of innocence or guilt and are applicable to all capital cases now coming before us on direct review. Because this defendant was tried, convicted and sentenced without the benefit of the new rules, his conviction and sentence should be vacated, and the cause should be remanded to the circuit court for a new trial in conformity with our new rules.
Even if defendant were not entitled to a new trial, I still could not join in the majority’s opinion. For the reasons set forth in my partial concurrence and partial dissent in People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179 (1998), the Illinois death penalty law violates the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amends. VIII, XIV) and article I, section 2, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2). At a minimum, defendant’s sentence of death should therefore be vacated, and the cause should be remanded to the circuit court for imposition of a sentence of imprisonment. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 9 — l(j).
JUSTICE KILBRIDE, also dissenting:
I respectfully join with Justice Freeman in his partial dissent concerning the prosecution’s closing arguments. Additionally, for the reasons set forth in my dissents in People v. Hickey, 204 Ill. 2d 585, 636-40 (2001) (Kilbride, J., dissenting), and People v. Simpson, 204 Ill. 2d 536, 581-85 (2001) (Kilbride, J., dissenting), I agree with Chief Justice Harrison that defendant’s convictions and sentence should be set aside because the trial proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the new supreme court rules governing capital cases. As I stated in my dissents, the procedures in capital cases prior to this court’s adoption of the new rules were inherently unreliable and did not sufficiently protect a defendant’s constitutional rights. Consequently, since the new rules were promulgated to address the deficiencies of constitutional dimension that regularly occurred under the old system, the rules must be applied retroactively to all capital cases currently pending on direct appeal. See People v. Hudson, 195 Ill. 2d 117, 126 (2001), citing Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328 , 93 L. Ed. 2d 649, 661 , 107 S. Ct. 708, 716 (1987). For those reasons, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9744524. Public record. Not legal advice.