Court Opinion

ID: 9527363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:29:55.642821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:45.177246
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE UNDERWOOD, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree that the appellate court decision should be reversed. I do not agree that the case should be remanded for a new trial. The court justifies its action in doing so by stating that People v. Smith (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 95, “was a significant departure from the prior decisions of the appellate court. When a case is tried under an incorrect theory of law the appropriate action is to reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.” (73 Ill. 2d at 190.) The difficulty with that position is the fact that this case was not tried under an incorrect theory of law — it was tried under a correct theory as we held in Smith. And, although we refused in Smith, which the majority now characterizes as “a significant departure from the prior decisions of the appellate court,” to remand for a new trial, the court does so here. If Smith actually represented the significant change the court now says it did, the arguments for granting a new trial to that defendant were at least as persuasive as here if not more so. I would reverse the judgment of the appellate court and affirm the judgment of the circuit court. MR. JUSTICE RYAN joins in this partial concurrence and partial dissent.