Opinion ID: 2083453
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Failure to Argue Defendant Lacked Requisite Intent

Text: Defendant next contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that, due to defendant's mental impairments, defendant was incapable of forming the intent necessary to be found guilty of murder. Defendant concludes that the absence of a finding of the requisite intent would necessarily preclude the death sentence imposed for his conviction of felony-murder. See People v. Pugh, 157 Ill.2d 1, 17, 191 Ill.Dec. 10, 623 N.E.2d 255 (1993). The defense theory at trial was that defendant played no role in the offenses for which he was charged. An argument such as the one defendant proposes here would have directly contradicted that theory by admitting defendant's involvement in the robbery and attributing to him the acts that caused the victim's death. This court has previously held that, when the defense theory is one of innocence, trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to make such an argument. See People v. Todd, 178 Ill.2d 297, 331-32, 227 Ill. Dec. 516, 687 N.E.2d 998 (1997). Thus, we find no merit to defendant's claims concerning the effectiveness of his trial counsel during the guilt-innocence phase.