Court Opinion

ID: 9819229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:20:36.278097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:29.583445
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE LYTTON, specially concurring: It is the policy of this state to encourage plea agreements when properly administered. People v. Evans, 174 Ill. 2d 320, 325, 673 N.E.2d 244, 247 (1996). Prosecutors often negotiate these agreements with defendants to obtain testimony in other cases. I am concerned that the improper use of plea agreements would hinder the State’s ability to get important evidence. The majority holds that defendant’s testimony after the acceptance of his guilty plea was admissible at his subsequent trial. While I concur based on the record in this case, this decision should be narrowly construed. Thus, if the plea agreement had been contingent on defendant giving self-incriminating testimony immediately after the acceptance of the plea, fundamental fairness would require this testimony to be excluded from his later trial. Otherwise, because of the timing of the sworn testimony, the State could time the defendant’s admissions so that they could later be used against the defendant if the plea were vacated. Such a procedure could lead to radical changes in the strategies of defense attorneys, which would significantly reduce the number of these plea agreements and limit the evidence obtained by prosecutors. For the reasons stated, I specially concur in the majority’s reasoning only as it applies to the specific facts of this case.