Court Opinion

ID: 9519449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:16:40.598066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:23.274465
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SIMON, specially concurring: I do not agree with the reasoning stated by the majority for its conclusion; nevertheless, I agree with the result reached by the majority in this case, although on a different ground. The indictment charged that the defendant performed a deviate sexual act upon a child “in that he placed his mouth upon the sex organ of [the child],” while such corroborating evidence as the State presented suggested that an act of anal sex may have occurred. Rather than deciding this case on the ground that the State failed to establish the corpus delicti of indecent liberties with a child, I would rest the decision on the ground that the State failed to offer sufficient proof of the specific offense charged, namely an act of oral sex. The Willingham standard for establishing the corpus delicti is a rather low one: “[I]f the independent evidence tends to prove that an of- - fense occurred, then such evidence, if corroborative of the facts contained in the confession, may be considered along with the confession in establishing the corpus delicti. In such event, the independent evidence need not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that an offense did occur.” People v. Willingham (1982), 89 Ill. 2d 352, 361. Even this standard may present special difficulties in cases involving the sexual abuse of young children, for independent evidence that tends to prove that the offense occurred will often not exist or be inadmissible because of the age of the child. Since I would decide this case on the ground that the prosecutor’s proof was of a different offense than the one he charged, I would not reach the question in this case of how the Willingham standard applies to child-abuse cases.