Opinion ID: 3134725
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of Evidence of Richard Jackson’s Sentence

Text: We now turn to defendant’s arguments that errors at the second stage of sentencing require that he receive a new sentencing hearing. Defendant asserts that it was error for the circuit court to exclude evidence of Richard Jackson’s sentence at the aggravation-mitigation stage. According to defendant, the fact that Jackson had received a 60-year prison term was relevant mitigating evidence. Without this evidence, defendant argues, the jury was “left to speculate that Jackson already had received the death penalty.” It is well established by the precedent of this court that a defendant does not have a right to present evidence of a codefendant’s sentence at the aggravation-mitigation stage of sentencing. See, e.g. , People v. Jackson , 182 Ill. 2d 30, 54 (1998). As we explained in People v. Page , 156 Ill. 2d 258, 271-72 (1993), evidence of a codefendant’s sentence is not a relevant mitigating factor at the aggravation-mitigation stage, where the focus is on the defendant’s character and participation in the offense. “[R]equiring the sentencer to examine and compare the relative culpability of the defendants and the circumstances in aggravation and mitigation applicable to each would unnecessarily complicate an already difficult task.” Page , 156 Ill. 2d at 272. Thus, while a reviewing court may consider whether a defendant’s sentence is disparate when compared to a codefendant’s sentence, a defendant does not have a right to present the sentencing jury with evidence of a codefendant’s sentence. Jackson , 182 Ill. 2d at 92. Based on this authority, we hold that the circuit court did not err in excluding evidence of Jackson’s sentence.