Opinion ID: 2222285
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: evidence of victim impact

Text: The general rule is that testimony that the deceased left behind a spouse or children is not admissible at trial because it has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused. ( People v. Bernette (1964), 30 Ill.2d 359.) On the other hand, incidental references to the victim's family are permissible where relevant for some other purpose. I would agree with the majority that most of the testimony by the victim's wife was relevant as bearing on the victim's state of mind on the day in question; particularly in light of the defendant's claim that the victim was the aggressor and had been drinking. Evidence that the couple was not suffering from marital problems and that the officer was in good health was relevant to rebut the inference that he was drunk and aggressive. On the other hand, testimony that they had been married 12 years and had an unspecified number of children was probably not relevant for this purpose. I would agree these references, standing alone, would not mandate reversal. The reference to the length of the marriage was not objected to. And while the reference to children was objected to, it was certainly inadvertent, incidental, and innocuous  volunteered by the witness, and unprompted by any specific question. However, in combination with the other errors enumerated above, the admission of the length of the couple's marriage deprived the defendant of a fair trial. I therefore believe that the defendant's conviction and sentence should be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. While I would therefore not reach the issue of whether the defendant's death sentence was excessive, I agree with the majority that this case is distinguishable from People v. Carlson (1980), 79 Ill.2d 564, because this defendant, unlike the defendant in Carlson, did not act under the influence of extreme emotional or mental disturbance and had some, although not an extensive, prior criminal history. On the other hand, the majority's assertions that the defendant's youth should be discounted because of his lifestyle and his prior use of his age as a method of avoiding the consequences of his criminal activity are unnecessary. The majority's opinion illustrates the adage that hard cases make bad law. While any killing is terrible, the death of a police officer in the line of duty naturally evokes strong feelings among all members of the law enforcement community  judges included. Under these circumstances, any tendency to bend the rules of evidence in favor of a conviction, however natural, can and must be resisted. I therefore respectfully dissent.