finding that the defendant could not satisfy the prejudice prong because defense counsel was not ineffective when he failed to call a witness to provide cumulative testimony
How later courts described this case
- finding that the defendant could not satisfy the prejudice prong because defense counsel was not ineffective when he failed to call a witness to provide cumulative testimony
- rejecting the defendant’s claim that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to call a witness to provide cumulative testimony, because the defendant could not satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test
- rejecting intoxication defense because defendant’s recall in his statements to the police showed he was acutely aware of his surroundings and occurrence witnesses stated defendant had no difficulty speaking or walking
- given the totality of circumstances, where the defendant had been involved in a burglary and had given a police statement stating that “ ‘he must have intended to kill’ ” the victim, additional evidence of the ingestion of PCP was irrelevant
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree that Smith’s convictions should not be disturbed. In my view, however, his sentence of death cannot be allowed to stand. 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). Smith’s sentence of death should therefore be vacated and he should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. 720 ILCS 5/9 — l(j) (West 1998).