Court Opinion

ID: 9743662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:39:45.539821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:42.622945
License: Public Domain

CRAVEN, J.P dissenting: The State’s Attorney, in his closing argument, used improper and prejudicial remarks which, in my view, constitute plain error affecting the substantial rights of the defendant. This error necessitates a remandment for a new trial. As I understand the majority on this issue, they agree that the argument was improper but conclude that the prejudice was not such as to require a new trial in view of the evidence of guilt. The prosecutor, in his closing argument, said: “Everyone that is guilty of an act in violation of the law, stands in utter disregard for the law, that has no respect for the law, that demonstrates that by their conduct, when that is brought to the jury’s attention, a juror that fails to do anything other than to convict those individuals is guilty of a breach of trust, of misconduct as a juror. And I would charge every one of you — each and every one of you with that offense if the verdict in this case were not guilty. You would not be following the law, you would not be paying any attention at all to the evidence. I say that it isn’t up to you to decide here today what the law should be. . . .” (Emphasis added.) Any member of this jury could reasonably have understood from this argument that a not guilty verdict would result in a charge against the juror of misconduct as a juror. A verdict arrived at under such an apprehension, explicit or implicit, should not stand. That which the Supreme Court stated in People v. Romero, 36 Ill2d 315, 223 NE2d 121 (1967), is applicable here. The court stated (at 320 (223 NE2d at 124)): “. . . we have often held, both in civil and criminal cases, that if ‘prejudicial arguments are made without objection of counsel or interference of the trial court to the extent that the parties litigant cannot receive a fair trial and the judicial process stand without deterioration, then upon review this court may consider such assignments of error, even though no objection was made and no ruling made or preserved in the trial court.’ (Citing cases.) ”