Court Opinion

ID: 9732855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:39:57.724413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:35.433041
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SIMON, also dissenting: For the reasons set forth in Chief Justice Clark’s dissenting opinion, as well as those expressed in my separate opinion in People v. Caballero (1984), 102 Ill. 2d 23, 52 (Simon, J., dissenting), I too believe that the majority is wrong in declaring that a post-trial motion is required in order to preserve issues for direct review in a capital case. In fact, Caballero made clear that counsel’s failure to file a motion for a new trial in a capital case, while perhaps inviting a tongue-lashing from this court, could not affect the court's review of the constitutionally mandated automatic appeal. That principle was only recently reaffirmed in People v. Porter (1986), 111 Ill. 2d 386. In Porter, the defendant raised two arguments on appeal concerning his right to trial by an impartial jury; only one of the two points had been included in his motion for a new trial. The court once again admonished trial counsel to comply with the post-trial motion statute; it held, though, that “death penalty cases such as this are automatically reviewed by this court under our constitution” (111 Ill. 2d 386, 399) and proceeded to address the merits of both arguments. I find it puzzling that the court, in disregard of the principle of stare decisis, now appears to overrule Caballero and Porter without even mentioning them. The cases which are cited by the majority are not in point: in both People v. Precup (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 7, and People v. Wright (1985), 111 Ill. 2d 128, the defendants did file motions for a new trial, but failed in their motions to raise the issues later relied upon; here, as in Caballero, no such motion was filed. I suggest that the entire question of what post-trial motions, if any, are required in capital cases and under what circumstances the failure to file a post-trial motion constitutes a waiver of issues relied upon on appeal deserves and requires a careful reexamination by the court. That question could even stand reexamination in noncapital cases in view of the manner in which many opinions have strayed away from the clear rule announced by Justice Ryan in People v. Black (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 544, 551 (“Constitutional questions as well as others may be waived by the absence of prior objections and the failure to preserve the same for review” (emphasis added)), and by Justice Schaefer in People v. Needham (1961), 22 Ill. 2d 258, 259 (“No objection or motion to strike was made, however, and the point was not raised in defendant’s written motion for a new trial. It has therefore been waived” (emphasis added)). That rule necessitates that counsel bring the error to the trial court’s attention; I submit that requiring a second objection by a post-trial motion serves little purpose except to impose an unnecessary technicality on defendants. I would add that the majority’s holding that sentencing issues must be preserved in a motion for a new trial is not grounded in the statute which governs all aspects of capital sentencing in the trial court and on review; section 9 — 1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 9 — 1) does not provide for a post-trial motion in capital cases. Rather, the majority relies on the semantic argument that the sentencing hearing is a part of the trial. Even if this is so, the chief justice correctly points out that it makes no sense at all to require a defendant to ask for a new trial when his challenge relates to the sentence which was imposed. Having concluded that the defendant’s failure to file a motion for a new trial after the sentencing hearing precludes consideration of all but “plain” sentencing errors, the majority quickly dispatches the defendant’s claim that he was deprived of his rights under the sixth amendment’s confrontation clause. The majority upholds the death sentence but is somewhat obscure on whether the denial of confrontation in this instance was not error at all or whether it simply was not “substantial” enough to rise to the level of plain error. In either case, I disagree. Hearsay transcripts of former testimony by several witnesses were introduced in aggravation at the defendant’s sentencing hearing and helped to put him on death row. The State made no showing that the witnesses were unavailable to appear in person. The majority concedes that such a showing is generally a prerequisite under the confrontation clause to the admission of this type of hearsay but suggests either that a demonstration of unavailability is never required at the sentencing hearing or at least that it is not required when the hearsay is deemed reliable. As to the first alternative, the source of the majority’s doubt about the need for a showing of unavailability at the sentencing hearing is apparently Williams v. New York (1949), 337 U.S. 241, 93 L. Ed. 1337, 69 S. Ct. 1079. Williams held that due process did not require any confrontation of declarants whose out-of-court statements were contained in a presentence report and were relied upon by the judge in passing sentence. That decision, which predated and obviously did not contemplate the present-day formal sentencing hearing in capital cases, has been robbed of continuing vitality by subsequent developments, including the court’s recognition that the sentence of death is “qualitatively different” from other punishments. (Woodson v. North Carolina (1976), 428 U.S. 280, 305, 49 L. Ed. 2d 944, 961, 96 S. Ct. 2978, 2991.) “Given the gravity of the decision to be made at the penalty phase, the State is not relieved of the- obligation to observe fundamental constitutional guarantees.” (Estelle v. Smith (1981), 451 U.S. 454, 463, 68 L. Ed. 2d 359, 369, 101 S. Ct. 1866, 1873 (vacating a death sentence because evidence was introduced at the penalty phase in violation of the defendant’s fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination and sixth amendment right to counsel).) The right to be confronted with adverse witnesses is a “fundamental requirement” of that character (Chambers v. Mississippi (1973), 410 U.S. 284, 295, 35 L. Ed. 2d 297, 309, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 1046), and the right therefore extends to the penalty phase of a capital case (Proffitt v. Wainwright (11th Cir. 1982), 685 F.2d 1227, modified (11th Cir. 1983), 706 F.2d 311). For these reasons a showing that witnesses are unavailable must precede the introduction of their hearsay statements at sentencing. I would also add that the majority’s apparent suggestion that the sentencing hearing is not a part of the trial for the purposes of the sixth amendment stands in striking contrast to its earlier conclusion that the hearing is a part of trial for purposes of the post-trial-motion requirement. I fail to understand how the majority can expect to have it both ways. In addition, the reliability of the hearsay cannot, as the majority holds, serve as a substitute for the independent requirement of the confrontation clause that the witnesses be shown to be unavailable. Ohio v. Roberts makes unmistakably clear that the “Confrontation Clause operates in two separate ways to restrict the range of admissible hearsay” (emphasis added): the witnesses must be unavailable and the hearsay must be reliable. (Ohio v. Roberts (1980), 448 U.S. 56, 65, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597, 607, 100 S. Ct. 2531, 2539.) The two separate requirements serve two distinct goals: the necessity for a showing of unavailability reflects the “Framers’ preference for face-to-face accusation,” while the purpose of the reliability test is to assure “accuracy in the factfinding process.” (448 U.S. 56, 65, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597, 607, 100 S. Ct. 2531, 2539.) Neither factor standing alone can satisfy the sixth amendment. There can thus be little doubt that the defendant was erroneously denied his right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. This violation of the sixth amendment is clearly one which involves a “substantial” right. I would therefore vacate the death sentence and remand the cause for further proceedings.