involving comments that defendant was a habitual criminal
How later courts described this case
- involving comments that defendant was a habitual criminal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice House, dissenting:
The defendant did not properly object to the prosecutor’s comments made in oral argument, but it is not necessary to decide the issue upon the technical ground that the question is not preserved. The proof showed a brutal and atrocious crime and defendant was identified as the perpetrator. The prosecuting attorney may properly refer to the evil results of crime and urge a fearless administration of the law. (People v. Miller, 13 Ill.2d 84 ; People v. Caylor, 386 Ill. 501 .) He is also entitled to denounce the defendant as guilty of the crime charged if the evidence fairly tends to prove guilt. (People v. Anderson, 403 Ill. 128 .) Comment may be made not only upon facts directly proved, but upon all those which are fairly inferable from the evidence (People v. Howe, 375 Ill. 130 ) and while the use of invective is not to be approved, it is not objectionable to denounce the wickedness of defendant or characterize him in an unfavorable manner if the comments are based upon the evidence. (People v. Stephens, 6 Ill.2d 257 .) Tested in the light of applicable rules, and of the facts disclosed by the evidence, I am of the opinion that the remarks complained of were not of such a nature as to require a reversal of the judgment.
Where, as here, the evidence of a defendant’s guilt is overwhelming, we should not use reversal and remandment as a means of chiding the prosecutor whose remarks verge on impropriety in his zeal to convict a guilty defendant.
Mr. Justice Hershsy joins in this dissent.