Opinion ID: 2242748
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mary Williams

Text: Defendant next argues that the court erred in sustaining the prosecution's objection when defense counsel asked defendant's mother if she could give the ladies and gentlemen of the jury any reasons why they should spare [defendant's] life. We find no error. When defense counsel posed this question to the witness, the State objected and a sidebar was called. The trial court sustained the objection and instructed defense counsel that she could not ask a witness anything with respect to the death penalty. That [means] why he shouldn't get it, why he should get it, whatever. The court explained that counsel could elicit facts about defendant from the witnesses and then, in closing argument, argue that the facts constituted mitigating circumstances sufficient to preclude imposition of the death penalty. However, counsel had to structure her questions without going into why somebody should not get the death penalty which is tantamount to saying do you think the defendant should get the death penalty. The trial court's ruling was correct. A witness' opinion that a defendant should not be sentenced to death is not admissible at a death penalty proceeding. People v. Williams, 161 Ill.2d 1, 70, 204 Ill.Dec. 72, 641 N.E.2d 296 (1994); People v. Stewart, 105 Ill.2d 22, 67, 85 Ill.Dec. 241, 473 N.E.2d 840 (1984). Witnesses may testify concerning matters relating to the record and character of the defendant and the nature and circumstances of the offense, but not as to their opinions regarding the appropriate sentence. This determination is left to the sentencing authority based on the evidence adduced, and a witness' opinion thus is irrelevant. Williams, 161 Ill.2d at 70, 204 Ill.Dec. 72, 641 N.E.2d 296. The trial court drew exactly this distinction in sustaining the State's objection to the question. A witness giving reasons that a defendant should not be sentenced to death is implicitly arguing that the defendant should not be sentenced to death. The trial court correctly foreclosed this attempted end-run around the rule that witness opinions regarding the appropriate penalty are inadmissible. The court also made clear to defense counsel that the proper procedure was to elicit the facts from the witness and then use closing argument at the aggravation-mitigation phase to show the jury why the facts militated against a sentence of death. Thus, reversal on this ground is unwarranted.