Opinion ID: 3134763
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: THE COURT: Move on.”

Text: Next, after Hardy stated his diagnosis that frontal lobe abnormality was a factor in defendant’s behavior, the prosecutor asked: “Are you actually telling us that [defendant’s] criminality is caused by some boo-boo to the head?” The court admonished the prosecutor to “stop that.” Additionally, in closing arguments, the prosecutor urged the jury to weigh the evidence in aggravation against a “boo-boo to the brain.” “[W]e heard about [defendant’s] problems,  we’ve heard about his medication, we’ve heard about his brain ad nauseum from psycho-babble that went on and on and on.” “When you consider all [the evidence in aggravation] and you weigh it against those [two] cash for trash doctors , you’ll see that there are no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude imposition of the death penalty.” In rebuttal argument, a different prosecutor stated: “[Defendant] has the audacity to suggest to you that we, the People of the State of Illinois[,] are doing the same thing now that he did behind his jail cell. You know, I don’t care about a criminal defense lawyer trying to insult me, but don’t let him insult you. Because he’s suggesting to you that you’re killing him now too. Shame on him.” The prosecutor went on to say that “[g]iving him natural life is an American Express Gold Card for this defendant to assault correctional officers, prison staff, cafeteria workers, possessing shanks, sharpened to a point to stab anybody who makes him angry.” Again, defendant failed to object to all but the first of these comments at trial and did not include an objection to any of the comments in his post-trial motion, thereby waiving review of the issue. Enoch , 122 Ill. 2d at 186. In his argument, defendant does not acknowledge his waiver, nor does he request this court to address the issue under the plain error rule. Therefore, we conclude that defendant has waived any challenge to these remarks. This conclusion should not be interpreted in any way as condoning improper prosecutorial remarks that have become all too frequent in criminal trials. The prosecutor’s use of sarcasm to describe Dr. Hardy’s diagnosis as a “boo-boo to the head” and reference to both expert witnesses as “cash for trash doctors” is completely unacceptable. Although a new trial is not always a necessary sanction for improper remarks of a prosecutor, comments denigrating defendant’s witnesses must be strongly condemned. B. Danita Best’s and Kerrie Major’s Sentences Defendant also contends that his death sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate to the natural life sentences of his codefendants Danita Best and Kerrie Major. In support, defendant claims that both Danita and Kerrie are more culpable than he because they physically stabbed the victims and actively participated in the cover-up while his role in the murders was minimal. A disparity in the sentences of codefendants does not, by itself, show a violation of fundamental fairness. To be impermissible, the disparity must be arbitrary and unreasonable. People v. Caballero , 179 Ill. 2d 205, 216 (1997). In comparing the sentences, this court considers the nature of the offense, each individual’s relative involvement, character, background, criminal record, and potential for rehabilitation. People v. Burt , 168 Ill. 2d 49, 80 (1995). Defendant has not established an unconstitutional disparity with respect to either Danita’s or Kerrie’s sentence. Danita pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against defendant in exchange for natural life. A sentence imposed pursuant to a plea of guilty does not provide a valid basis of comparison to a sentence imposed subsequent to trial and conviction. Caballero , 179 Ill. 2d at 217. A court may grant dispositional concessions to defendants who enter a guilty plea when the public’s interest in the effective administration of justice would thereby be served. People v. Sivels , 60 Ill. 2d 102, 105 (1975). By pleading guilty and testifying against defendant in exchange for a sentence of natural life, Danita (1) acknowledged her guilt; (2) made a public trial unnecessary; and (3) gave cooperation which resulted in the successful prosecution of another offender engaged in equally serious or more serious criminal conduct. See Sivels , 60 Ill. 2d at 105. With respect to Kerrie Major, defendant argues only that his sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate because Kerrie is more culpable for the murders. He does not provide this court with evidence or argument regarding Kerrie’s character, background, criminal record, or potential for rehabilitation. While Kerrie did actively participate in the murders, defendant could not participate because he was incarcerated at the time the murders took place. Nevertheless, the murders would not have occurred but for defendant’s solicitation of them. Additionally, the evidence presented at defendant’s sentencing hearing indicates that defendant has a significant criminal record, including convictions for battery, aggravated battery, aggravated criminal sexual assault, and armed robbery. The evidence showed that defendant had repeatedly raped three of his sisters, beat his former girlfriend, and pushed a man through a ninth-story window. Further, defendant adjusted poorly to incarceration as evidenced by his possession of weapons and his receipt of 44 disciplinary tickets while in prison. Based on this evidence, we reject defendant’s contention that his death sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate to the sentence of natural life imposed on Kerrie Major. C. Death Penalty Eligibility Based on Accountability Defendant next challenges the constitutionality of section 9–1(b)(7) of the Code as applied to him on the basis of accountability. That section provides for death penalty eligibility if “the murdered individual was under 12 years of age and the death resulted from exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 9–1(b)(7). Defendant argues that sentencing him to death based on the manner in which other individuals carried out the killing violates the eighth amendment’s guarantee of individualized consideration of the defendant’s culpability. The jury found defendant eligible for the death penalty under three separate aggravating factors. “ ‘[W]here a defendant is found eligible based upon two or more statutory aggravating factors, the fact that one of those factors may later be invalidated will not generally impair the eligibility finding as long as a separate, valid aggravating factor supported eligibility.’ ” People v. Jackson , 182 Ill. 2d 30, 64 (1998), quoting People v. Brown , 169 Ill. 2d 132, 165 (1996); see also People v. Cole , 172 Ill. 2d 85, 102-03 (1996). Even if we did invalidate defendant’s eligibility verdict based on the brutal or heinous murder of a child under 12, defendant would continue to be eligible for the death penalty based on the multiple-murder and murder to prevent an individual from testifying in a criminal prosecution aggravating factors. D. Constitutionality of Illinois Death Penalty Finally, defendant makes four constitutional challenges to the Illinois death penalty statute. This court has previously considered and rejected the challenges raised by defendant, including his arguments that the death penalty statute (1) will inevitably be applied to innocent persons (see, e.g. , People v. McCallister , 193 Ill. 2d 63, 114 (2000); People v. Brown , 185 Ill. 2d 229, 260 (1998); People v. Bull , 185 Ill. 2d 179, 211-20 (1998)); (2) places a burden of proof on defendants that precludes meaningful consideration of mitigation (see, e.g. , Williams , 193 Ill. 2d at 376; Nieves , 192 Ill. 2d at 504; Bull , 185 Ill. 2d at 220; (3) allows the sentencer to weigh the vague aggravating factor of “any other reason” why a defendant should be sentenced to death (see, e.g. , People v. Sims , 192 Ill. 2d 592, 637-38 (2000); People v. Nielson , 187 Ill. 2d 271, 300 (1999); People v. Buss , 187 Ill. 2d 144, 248 (1999)); and (4) does not sufficiently minimize the risk of arbitrarily or capriciously imposed death sentences ( People v. Armstrong , 183 Ill. 2d 130, 162 (1998)). Defendant provides no persuasive reason for our reconsideration of these holdings.