Court Opinion

ID: 9819053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:18:09.702181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:29.037284
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, dissenting: I disagree with the result reached by the court for the reasons stated in my dissents in People v. Mitchell, 189 Ill. 2d 312, 362 (2000) (Freeman, J., dissenting, joined by Harrison, C.J., and McMorrow, J.), and People v. Jones, 191 Ill. 2d 194, 202-03 (2000) (Freeman, J., dissenting, joined by Harrison, C.J., and McMorrow, J.). The present case essentially mirrors that of defendant Jones. As in that case, I would decide this appeal, along with its procedural complexities, on the basis of the law as it stood prior to the issuance of Mitchell. See Mitchell, 189 Ill. 2d at 393-94 (Freeman, J., dissenting, joined by Harrison, C.J., and McMorrow, J.). I also wish to express my strong disagreement with the court’s decision to deny defendant’s request for additional briefing in order to address the changes in law brought about by Mitchell and their effect on this case. In Mitchell, this court reexamined the validity of past precedent sua sponte. Since this court issued its opinion in Mitchell, we have allowed parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the changes in the law in two cases that are pending — People v. Johnson, No. 84146 (order entered February 29, 2000), and People v. Jamison, No. 80967 (order entered March 21, 2000). Because defendant’s attorneys in this case could not have known of the changes in this area of the law prior to the filing of their original briefing materials, I would give defendant the same opportunity to reargue his claims that the court gave to defendants Johnson and Jamison. I, therefore, would grant defendant’s motion. CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON and JUSTICE McMORROW join in this dissent.