Court Opinion

ID: 9520352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:37:33.295149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:01.612568
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COUSINS, specially concurring: I concur with the decision to affirm the judgment of the circuit court in this case. However, .the prosecutor erred grossly during rebuttal argument by portraying the police as the “good guys” and the defendant as one of the “bad guys.” Since silence can be regarded as condonation, this special concurrence is penned with reasons for disapprobation. The pertinent statements during rebuttal argument by the prosecutor (Mr. Needham), the defense attorney (Mr. Theis) and the court during rebuttal that occasion my special concurrence were as follows: “MR. NEEDHAM: *** Think about what an evil, vile person would do that. Not just cut corners or fudge a police report or something to make your job a little bit easier. An out and out frame. What kind of person would do that. And then go to court two and a half years later and take an ought [sz'c] and run the risk of sending Mr. Innocent to an almost certain life in the penitentiary. MR. THEIS: Judge— MR. NEEDHAM: Or worse. MR. THEIS: I’m going to object and ask for a sidebar. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. NEEDHAM: What kind of man would do something like that. * * * Ricardo Abreu started wearing a police uniform serving and protecting the People of the City of Chicago before Deon Patrick was born to this earth. *** [Joe Magats is a State’s Attorney.] His career *** is about half the length of Deon Patrick’s career as a Vice Lord. These are decent hard working competent people. The police are the good guys. The Vice Lords are the bad guys. Let’s start with, that premise. *** When other kids are riding bikes, he joins the Vice Lords. So, get this idea out of your head right now that he was some lost soul there in the police station surrounded by these evil police officers. And remember, the police are good, the Vice Lords are bad. And that’s a fact.” (Emphasis added.) The record in the instant case reflects that the aspects of the rebuttal argument about which the defendant complains were brought to the attention of the trial judge. See People v. Young, 128 Ill. 2d 1, 39, 538 N.E.2d 461 (1989). The prosecutor’s argument was irrelevant and incorrect when he asserted: “And that’s a fact.” “[When] a prosecutor’s statements in summation are not relevant to the defendant’s guilt or innocence and can only serve to inflame the jury, the statements constitute error.” People v. Caballero, 126 Ill. 2d 248, 271, 533 N.E.2d 1089 (1989), citing People v. Tiller, 94 Ill. 2d 303, 321 (1982); People v. Smothers, 55 Ill. 2d 172, 176, 302 N.E.2d 324 (1973). “The test for determining if the prosecutor’s comments constitute reversible error is whether the remarks, considered in light of all the evidence, were a material factor in the conviction, or whether the jury might have reached a different result had the comments not been made.” People v. McCall, 190 Ill. App. 3d 483, 493 (1980), citing People v. Lasley, 158 Ill. App. 3d 614, 625-26, 511 N.E.2d 661 (1987). Although the prosecutor’s remarks constitute error, the improper remarks do not constitute reversible error because the evidence of defendant’s guilt in the instant case is overwhelming. See People v. Caballero, 126 Ill. 2d 248, 273, 533 N.E.2d 1089 (1989). Therefore, I specially concur. McNULTY, EJ., joins in this special concurrence.