Court Opinion

ID: 9745212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:41:33.90283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:57.610522
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE DOYLE, dissenting: I respectfully disagree that the prosecutor’s misconduct warrants a reversal of the conviction. I agree with our majority that the prosecutor, perhaps through inexperience, committed several infractions that would have been avoided by a competent professional. Probably, the most blatant example is the prosecutor’s direct implication that defense counsel had concocted false testimony for defendant. Although it might be appropriate for counsel to argue that his or her opponent’s case is a fabrication, when such argument is based upon a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, it is plainly improper to suggest, without clear proof, that counsel has actively fabricated a defense theory or suborned perjury. See People v. Kidd, 147 Ill. 2d 510, 542 (1992). In my view, however, our central focus in reviewing the conviction should be on determining whether defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial has been compromised by the offending practices rather than on penalizing the State for the practices. Had the trial court failed to deal effectively with the misconduct, I might agree that a new trial would be necessary. However, it appears to me that the judge was, at all times, in firm control of any potential infirmities. He consistently sustained defense objections to the cited infractions and, on at least two occasions, sternly reprimanded the prosecutor in the presence of the jury. Although prejudice cannot always be remedied by a court’s rulings, I believe that the trial court’s strong intervention, here, more than offset any tactical advantage the prosecutor might have hoped to gain through her misguided approach. Considering the proceedings in their entirety, it is my opinion that the cited instances of prosecutorial misconduct did not create such prejudice as to inhibit materially defendant’s right to a fair trial. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the circuit court.