Opinion ID: 2094772
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: Failure to Object to the Trial Court's Praise of the Jury

Text: Defendant next asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object and move for a mistrial after the trial court praised the jury following the jury's finding defendant guilty. Defendant also contends that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue on direct appeal. After the jury returned verdicts finding defendant guilty, the trial court, responding to an earlier request of the jury, told the jurors that they could begin hearing evidence for defendant's sentencing hearing the next day. Before dismissing the jurors, the court stated, I think you have certainly done a great job. You've been very diligent and we will see you tomorrow. A trial court has the duty to refrain from conveying improper impressions to the jury. People v. Brown, 172 Ill.2d 1, 38, 216 Ill.Dec. 733, 665 N.E.2d 1290 (1996). For such comments to be reversible error, the defendant must demonstrate that the comments constituted a material factor in the jury's decision. Brown, 172 Ill.2d at 38-39, 216 Ill.Dec. 733, 665 N.E.2d 1290. Here, we do not believe that the trial court's comment was intended as a praise of the jury's guilty verdict. The context of the statement reveals that the trial court was expressing its gratitude to the jury for deliberating for several hours and for performing its job. Given this context, and the substantial amount of aggravating evidence presented during the sentencing hearing, even if appellate counsel had raised this issue on appeal, no reasonable probability exists that this court would have found trial counsel ineffective for failing to object or seek a mistrial.