holding that one of the jury’s eligibility verdicts properly established the defendant’s eligibility for the death penalty notwithstanding that the jury’s other eligibility verdict, which was based on murder in the course of a felony, was legally insufficient under Mack because the verdict form omitted the necessary mental state; but where this court did not consider that the same jury found the requisite mental state at the guilt phase of the trial after finding the defendant guilty of six counts of first degree murder, including intentional murder
How later courts described this case
- holding that one of the jury’s eligibility verdicts properly established the defendant’s eligibility for the death penalty notwithstanding that the jury’s other eligibility verdict, which was based on murder in the course of a felony, was legally insufficient under Mack because the verdict form omitted the necessary mental state; but where this court did not consider that the same jury found the requisite mental state at the guilt phase of the trial after finding the defendant guilty of six counts of first degree murder, including intentional murder
- holding that counsel was not ineffective where defendant has not demonstrated prejudice resulting from his counsel's failure to object to the portion, of the argument at issue
- stating DEA’s knowledge of facts supporting probable cause imputed to a local law enforcement officer
- rejecting the defendant’s argument that the determination of probable cause was affected by police officers’ testimony that they did not believe that they had probable cause to arrest the defendant
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated on other grounds by In re G.O., 191 Ill. 2d 37 (2000)
187 Ill. 2d 144, 217 (1999), abrogated on other grounds by In re G.O., 191 Ill. 2d 37, 46-50
Disagreed with by People v. Walker, 211 Ill. 2d 317 (2004)
We also disagree with the State’s assertion that our adoption of the reasoning in Old Chief is at odds with our decision in People v. Buss, 187 Ill. 2d 144 (1999).
The opinion
JUSTICE HARRISON, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree that Timothy Buss’ convictions should be upheld. For the reasons set forth in my dissent in People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179 (1998), however, this state’s present death penalty law does not meet the requirements of the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amends. VIII, XIV) or article I, section 2, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2). Accordingly, we should vacate Buss’ death sentence and remand the cause to the circuit court for imposition of a sentence of imprisonment. 720 ILCS 5/9—1(j) (West 1994). There is, however, no need for the circuit court to conduct another sentencing hearing. Under the circumstances of this case, the only authorized disposition is a term of natural life imprisonment. 730 ILCS 5/5—8—1(1)(b) (West 1994).