Opinion ID: 2086125
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defendant's Confession to His Mother

Text: Defendant finally argues that trial defense counsel was ineffective for not requesting a mistrial during the guilt-innocence phase of trial when a lie detector operator testified that defendant admitted to his mother, I did it. Defendant argues that during cross-examination of this witness, defense counsel impeached the witness with his testimony from a preliminary hearing. According to defendant, the witness' testimony at the preliminary hearing was that defendant told his mother, I'm sorry. Defendant has waived this issue for review, however, because it could have been presented on direct review. While post-conviction appellate counsel stated at oral argument that defendant also argued the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, defendant did not argue this in his brief or post-conviction petition. Arguments raised for the first time during oral argument are waived for review. 134 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(7); see also People v. Stewart (1988), 121 Ill.2d 93, 105, 117 Ill.Dec. 187, 520 N.E.2d 348. We further note that this issue is without merit. At trial, the witness testified on redirect examination that he stated in his report that defendant told his mother he did it. Defendant ignores this as well as the transcript from the preliminary hearing itself at which the following occurred: Q. [State's Attorney:] Were you then present for a conversation between the defendant and his mother regarding the death of Darlene Dudek? A. [Witness:] Walter just said, `I did it.' Q. At the conclusion of that A. I'm sorry. He said, `I'm sorry.' Q. At the conclusion of that, did you leave the room? A. I walked out. It thus appears that the witness testified at the preliminary hearing that defendant told his mother both I did it and I'm sorry. There is thus no merit to defendant's claims concerning trial counsel's effectiveness during the guilt-innocence phase.