stating that it is appropriate to first determine whether error occurred at all
How later courts described this case
- stating that it is appropriate to first determine whether error occurred at all
- section 9-1(b)(11) “requires that the murder be ‘cold,’ i.e., not motivated by mercy or the emotion of the moment, and that it be ‘calculated and premeditated, pursuant to a preconceived, plan, scheme or design,’ i.e., deliberated or reflected upon for an extended period”
- plurality opinion of McMorrow, J., joined by Freeman and Rathje, JJ.
- applying similar standard in capital murder case to assess sufficiency of evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree that Williams’ murder conviction should not be disturbed, but that his sentence of death should be set aside. In my view, however, the State should not be permitted to seek the death penalty under any theory at the new sentencing hearing. For the reasons set forth in my dissent in People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179 (1998), 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). It is therefore void and unenforceable. Accordingly, on resentencing, the circuit court should impose a term of imprisonment. 720 ILCS 5/9 — l(j) (West 1998).