Court Opinion

ID: 9861083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:40:46.833356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:10.265791
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HARRISON, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with the majority that we should vacate defendant’s convictions for armed robbery and felony murder. I also agree that we should vacate defendant’s death sentence on his convictions for intentional and knowing first degree murder and remand the cause to the circuit court for resentencing. I write separately because my reasoning differs in certain important respects from that of my colleagues. Contrary to the majority, I believe that the circuit court abused its discretion in excusing Mrs. DePolo from the jury panel. It is true that she answered yes when the circuit court asked her whether her beliefs were such that she would automatically vote against the death penalty if defendant were found guilty. As the majority’s discussion shows, however, this was actually the second time the same basic question had been put to her. The first time, the court asked her if her beliefs were such that she would not, under any circumstances, consider signing a verdict directing the court to impose the death penalty. To that question she had a very different answer. She gave an unequivocal “no.” She had no such scruples against signing a verdict calling for death. This initial negative response by Mrs. DePolo was fully consistent with all of her other answers to the court’s questions. She stated without hesitation or qualification that she had “no strong feelings by reason of religion, morals or conscience against the infliction of the death penalty,” that her feelings about the death penalty would not “prevent or substantially impair [her] ability to reach a fair and impartial decision as to whether the defendant was guilty,” and that her views on the death penalty would not “prevent or substantially impair the performance of [her] duties as a juror in accordance with the Court’s instructions as to the law and [her] oath as a juror.” Under these circumstances, I fail to see how Mrs. DePolo’s response to the court’s second anti-death-penalty question can reasonably be viewed as anything other than an inadvertent misstatement. The questions were phrased in an awkward and cumbersome way. Even the trial judge was confused when he attempted to paraphrase what her answer meant. He initially characterized what DePolo said as indicating that she would automatically sign a death verdict, then caught himself and described her answer as stating the opposite, namely, that she would “refuse to sign a death penalty verdict,” or, more accurately, that “she would automatically vote against the death penalty.” A potential juror’s views on the death penalty will warrant removal for cause only if they substantially impair the performance of his or her duties as a juror. People v. Hope, 168 Ill. 2d 1, 33 (1995). Mrs. DePolo’s voir dire answers did not reveal her to be a person for whom that would be the case. To the contrary, taken in context and viewed in their entirety, Mrs. DePolo’s responses indicated that her personal views would have no effect on her willingness or ability to honor her responsibilities as a juror. To the extent that one of her answers suggested otherwise, it was incumbent on the circuit court to ask appropriate follow-up questions to clarify her position. This simple, commonsense precaution would not have caused any delay or inconvenience, and would have ensured that the jury selection process was free from taint. The circuit court’s unwillingness to query Mrs. DePolo further was completely unjustified, and its exclusion of her from the jury panel was error. Our court has held: “The erroneous exclusion of a prospective juror because of the person’s views regarding capital punishment, though it will not vitiate the jury’s determination of guilt, will necessitate a new sentencing hearing.” People v. Seuffer, 144 Ill. 2d 482, 508 (1991). For this reason, in addition to the reasons given by the majority, defendant’s death sentence should be set aside and the cause should be remanded for a new sentencing hearing. The majority would allow defendant to receive the death sentence following remand. To this extent, I dissent. For the reasons set forth in my dissent in People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179 (1998), this state’s present death penalty law does not meet the requirements of the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amends. VIII, XIV) or article I, section 2, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2). On resentencing, defendant should therefore receive a sentence other than death.