Opinion ID: 2026970
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant's Remaining Allegations

Text: The amended motion to suppress additionally alleged that the detectives repeatedly: cursed and shouted at defendant's mother and told her to shut up; told defendant that he would be raped in prison; and told defendant that if he made a statement, he would go home. The motion also alleged that several members of the police department approached him and told him that he would never go home. However, in their testimony, Nolan, Zalatoris, and O'Connell each denied that he, or anyone in his presence, committed the alleged acts. In denying the motion to suppress, the circuit court expressly assessed the credibility of the witnesses. Regarding the alleged invective hurled at Bronaugh, her own testimony plainly shows that, rather than being cowed, she simply returned the epithet to the detective. The circuit court specifically found that in defendant's videotaped statement Bronaugh appeared cool, calm, collected, and not in the least bit agitated. After reviewing the entire record, we conclude that there is no evidence that defendant's will was overborne. In rejecting the allegations of the amended motion to suppress, the circuit court plainly found the State's witnesses to be more credible. As stated, findings of fact and credibility determinations made by the circuit court are accorded great deference because that court is in the best position to observe the conduct and demeanor of the parties and witnesses, to assess their credibility, and to give the appropriate weight to the evidence. Slater, 228 Ill.2d at 151, 319 Ill. Dec. 862, 886 N.E.2d 986. Based on the totality of the circumstances, we agree with the circuit court that defendant's inculpatory statement was voluntary, and we uphold the circuit court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress his inculpatory statement. Consequently, we decline the State's invitation to discuss whether the admission of defendant's statement into evidence at trial was harmless error. See, e.g., People v. Garvin, 219 Ill.2d 104, 116, 301 Ill.Dec. 423, 847 N.E.2d 82 (2006) (declining to consider whether admission of the defendant's statements into evidence at trial was harmless error because trial court properly admitted them); Patterson, 154 Ill.2d at 447, 182 Ill.Dec. 592, 610 N.E.2d 16 (same); Case, 218 Ill.App.3d at 159, 160 Ill.Dec. 720, 577 N.E.2d 1291 (same); accord People v. Brown, 229 Ill.2d 374, 392, 323 Ill.Dec. 42, 892 N.E.2d 1034 (2008) (finding no error, we need not consider the State's harmless-error argument). Further, the appellate court did not address all of the issues raised by defendant on appeal because it considered the suppression issue dispositive. 376 Ill.App.3d at 544, 314 Ill.Dec. 915, 875 N.E.2d 1202. Therefore, we remand the cause to the appellate court for consideration of defendant's remaining contentions. See, e.g., People v. Collins, 214 Ill.2d 206, 222, 291 Ill.Dec. 686, 824 N.E.2d 262 (2005); People v. Rosenberg, 213 Ill.2d 69, 82, 289 Ill.Dec. 664, 820 N.E.2d 440 (2004).