Court Opinion

ID: 9861519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:08:49.580109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:37.391109
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COUSINS, specially concurring: This is the second time that we have before us on appeal the identical issues raised in the trial court. It is now clear that it was unnecessary in the first appeal to remand the case for the sole purpose of having the trial court make specific findings on the disputed issue regarding the alleged handcuffing of the defendant while he was at the police station. Answering the mandate of this court, the trial court has now stated: "I am unable to resolve the conflict between the testimony of the police officers and Mr. Bass. In the Court’s judgment, the credibility of both sides is weak. Consequently, I find the testimony to be in equal pose [sic]. I don’t know whether Bass was handcuffed.” Now, having received this response from the trial court, we decide that we had a sufficient record to have initially decided the appeal. This case underscores the uselessness of remanding appeals for further preliminary procedures regarding a particular issue before we decide the appeal when the record is sufficient to support an appellate decision and there is no abridgment of rights guaranteed by either the Federal or State Constitution or a violation of procedure mandated by Illinois Supreme Court Rules. In this case, I specially concur only because I agree with the majority that it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence on the particular facts of this case for the trial court to conclude that the defendant, having a gunshot wound to the foot, did not agree to remain at the police station for 12 hours before he made the statement.