Court Opinion

ID: 9885071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:29:04.355355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:38.656267
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Underwood, concurring: This was a pre-Miranda trial, and, regardless of the post-Miranda status of the tacit admission rule, that rule was in effect in Illinois at the time of this trial. The evidence in this case, in its aspect most favorable to defendant, was that he did not deny the inculpatory statements made by Whittles in defendant’s presence. The then controlling tacit admission rule permitted proof of those facts, and I consider that rule dispositive of this case. People v. Aughinbaugh, 36 Ill.2d 320. On that ground, I concur in the judgment. The majority’s further conclusion that, considering the totality of the evidence, any violation of the Bruton rule was harmless error, is, in my opinion, unnecessary. I find no such violation in the facts of this case, and to the extent that the majority opinion may be thought to indicate the contrary, I respectfully disagree.