Court Opinion

ID: 9717169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:59:42.030209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:51.817287
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SIMON, dissenting: As fully explained in my dissent in People v. Wright (1985), 111 Ill. 2d 128, conviction by a jury which has been death-qualified, in my opinion, violates a defendant’s sixth amendment right to be tried by a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. (Grigsby v. Mabry (8th Cir. 1985) (en banc), 758 F.2d 226.) For this reason I disagree with the manner in which the majority applies Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968), 391 U.S. 510, 20 L. Ed. 2d 776, 88 S. Ct. 1770 (111 Ill. 2d at 197). Since a prospective juror was excluded for cause from the jury in this case after stating that he could not vote for the death penalty, I believe that the convictions should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. Further, the prosecutor’s argument here which focused on the victim’s family and the probable reaction of the victim’s son to finding his mother’s body was an “improper appeal to the emotions of the jurors” (People v. Holman (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 133, 166) warranting reversal. In the course of his closing argument, the prosecutor said that the police “were confronted at first with talking to the son, Ed Grissom, of Mrs. Waid. Now, if you can feel in your mind and in your heart, the horror that Ed Grissom must have faced when he walked into the bedroom, first, his mother’s bedroom, and saw it ransacked, and thinking it was only a burglary, and then went back there and saw his mother, beaten to death, bloody on the floor, I mean, there is nothing to explain that type of horror. It could only be felt by the person that it happens to.” Shortly thereafter, the prosecutor argued that defendant “brutally murdered her, and ended a full life, when she was in the midst of her golden years, leaving children and grandchildren, without a grandmother and victimizing that class of citizens, that we victimize too much.” References to a victim’s family are improper and prejudicial. (People v. Holman (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 133; People v. Ramirez (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 439; People v. Hicks (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 457; People v. Gregory (1961), 22 Ill. 2d 601; People v. Dukes (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 334.) In my opinion, the prosecutor’s second comment, standing alone, would require reversal. The fact that the victim left children and grandchildren is every bit as irrelevant here as were similar remarks in both Holman and Hicks. But even were this comment not sufficient to justify reversal, the total effect of the two quoted statements went well beyond a mere reference to the fact that there were surviving family members. The prosecutor explicitly invited the jurors to place themselves in the position of the victim’s son and try to imagine his horror. Although the son’s testimony as to finding his mother’s body was itself relevant to establishing defendant’s guilt, his reactions to finding the body were irrelevant to any issue in the case. The prosecutor’s argument dwelling upon the son’s horror constituted a blatant visceral appeal which served no other purpose than to inflame the jury against defendant. Unlike the majority, on this record I cannot conclude that the reference to the victim’s family was “fleeting” (111 Ill. 2d at 197). I would therefore reverse defendant’s convictions. In addition to the two improper references during closing argument at the guilt phase, the prosecutor renewed his emotional appeals during his rebuttal closing argument at the sentencing hearing. In the course of explaining why the death sentence should be imposed, the prosecutor said: “Well, I do have, because of the nature of my position, the ability to judge people, and deal with people on a daily basis, and I see several thousand incidents and victims in this situation, and I can look into Ed Grissom’s eyes, or I can look into other senior citizens eyes in this county, and tell you what they are thinking about this case, and I can tell you how they feel, I can tell you how Ed Grissom, and his children feel, that his mother was murdered, and I can tell you how he felt when he discovered her, on August 22nd, 1982. It doesn’t take great talent to tell you how they felt, because I think you know how he felt.” (Emphasis added.) Immediately thereafter he requested the death penalty. This argument independently requires that we vacate the death sentence since the prosecutor sought to “relate [the] defendant’s punishment to the existence of family” (People v. Bernette (1964), 30 Ill. 2d 359, 371) and their reaction to the crime. Moreover, the repetition of the prosecutor’s improper argument in the sentencing hearing evidences his intention during the guilt stage to inject emotional appeals into the proceedings. The death sentence should also be vacated on two other grounds. First, the sentence cannot stand here because yet another part of the prosecutor’s argument during the sentencing hearing violated defendant’s fifth amendment right against self-in crimination. Direct reference by a prosecutor to a defendant’s failure to testify is always a violation of the defendant’s fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. (Griffin v. California (1965), 380 U.S. 609, 14 L. Ed. 2d 106, 85 S. Ct. 1229; People v. Lyles (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 373, 390.) Even an indirect reference to the defendant’s silence is constitutionally impermissible if the comment was such that the jury would “ '*** naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify.’ ” (United States ex rel. Burke v. Greer (7th Cir. 1985), 756 F.2d 1295, 1300, quoting United States v. Lyon (7th Cir. 1968), 397 F.2d 505, 509.) The defendant’s fifth amendment right and the proscription against commenting on the exercise of that right extend to the sentencing phase of trial. (People v. Ramirez (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 439, 449.) Consistent with these principles, the prosecutor’s direct reference to the defendant’s silence during the sentencing hearing in this case requires that the death sentence be vacated. During the prosecutor’s closing argument in the sentencing hearing he told the jury: “You are to follow the law and you are to remember that from the time this case has started, and the evidence was presented, you have not seen or heard or observed in court, one moment of remorse by the defendant.” The defense counsel immediately objected, and the judge sustained the objection but did not then admonish the jurors to disregard the remark or advise them not to eonsider defendant’s failure to testify. The prosecutor’s reference here is exactly the kind which the fifth amendment proscribes. Unquestionably, the prosecutor’s comment called attention to the defendant’s behavior at some stage of the proceedings. However, the majority concludes that the remark actually refers to the defendant’s lack of remorse as exhibited in the taped confession which the jury heard at trial. This interpretation is not supported by an examination of the prosecutor’s actual words. The prosecutor did not say that “you did not hear any display of remorse in the taped confession.” Rather, he told the jury that they had not “seen or heard or observed” any remorse by the defendant. If the prosecutor’s comment was directed only to defendant’s taped confession, then the reference to not seeing or observing remorse is meaningless; remorse cannot be “seen” or “observed,” of course, on a tape recording. In addition, the prosecutor’s own words define the context of defendant’s failure to demonstrate remorse as “in court.” The natural meaning of “in court” is not restricted to what the jury heard on the tape recording, but encompasses everything that occurred within the presence of the jury. Further, the time frame which the prosecutor referred to makes clear that the jury would naturally take this comment as directed to defendant’s refusal to testify. The prosecutor told the jury that the relevant time period was “from the time that this case has started.” The majority simply ignores this language and arbitrarily restricts its scope to one portion of the trial. In fact, by pointing out that nothing they had seen, heard, or observed in court since the case started demonstrated remorse, the prosecutor directly called the jury’s attention to the defendant’s course of conduct throughout the trial and, most obviously, his failure to take the stand in his own defense. The prosecutor’s comment here was similar in content and probable effect on the jury to the prosecutorial remark in People v. Ramirez (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 439, 451. There, this court vacated the defendant’s sentence because the prosecutor argued during the sentencing hearing that “[h]e [the defendant] has sat silent before you, before his accusers and before the tryer [sic] of fact and offered no explanation for the murder.” (98 Ill. 2d 439, 451.) The State maintained in Ramirez, as it does here, that the comment was directed only to the defendant’s lack of remorse. This court properly rejected that argument. The question is not simply what the prosecutor intended (United States v. Rodriguez (7th Cir. 1980), 627 F.2d 110), but whether, in fact, the comment “specifically refers” to the defendant’s silence (People v. Ramirez (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 439, 451). I can discern no difference of constitutional magnitude between the remark that the jury had not “seen or heard” any display by the defendant and saying that the defendant was “silent.” See also United States v. Rodriguez (7th Cir. 1980), 627 F.2d 110, 111 (comment that defendant “throughout the trial has been very quiet at the end of the counsel table” held reversible error). Even if the comment at issue in this case is not construed as a direct reference to defendant’s failure to take the stand, it is certainly an impermissible indirect one, since the jury would “naturally and necessarily” understand it to refer to defendant’s failure to testify. (United States ex rel. Burke v. Greer (7th Cir. 1985), 756 F.2d 1295, 1300.) The fact that the statement could also be taken as a mere allusion to the taped confession is irrelevant. In People v. Kelley (1963), 29 Ill. 2d 53, the State argued that a remark by the prosecutor might have referred to defendant’s failure to reply to an accusation by the victim at the crime scene that defendant shot him. This court said there that the prosecutor should “refrain from making any argument that could be construed by the jury as a comment on her failure to testify.” (Emphasis added.) 29 Ill. 2d 53, 61. The majority suggests that even if there was error in this case it was cured when the circuit judge sustained the defense counsel’s objection and eventually instructed the jury to disregard comments to which objections were sustained. In my view, the mere fact that the court sustained a general objection to the argument can have had no curative effect. The jurors are not lawyers and cannot be expected to understand either counsel’s reason for objecting or the meaning of the judge’s ruling. It is also plain to me that the general injunction by the court, after the close of argument, to disregard any statements to which objections had been sustained can be of absolutely no value; the majority’s argument assumes a superhuman capacity for comprehension and retention as lacking in jurists as it is in jurors. The majority’s conclusion here simply ignores the established rule that the prejudicial effect of improper argument can be erased, if at all, by the “act of promptly sustaining the objection and instructing the jury to disregard such argument.” (Emphasis added.) (People v. Baptist (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 19, 30.) Even a final instruction on the defendant’s right to remain silent is not adequate to cure the error where the judge has not immediately admonished the jury to disregard the remarks. (United States ex rel. Burke v. Greer (7th Cir. 1985), 756 F.2d 1295, 1303.) A final instruction to disregard arguments to which objections were sustained is therefore wholly impotent. The majority claims that this “brief and, at worst, ambiguous” comment did not deny the defendant a fair sentencing hearing. (111 Ill. 2d at 196.) I would point out that, in view of the extreme penalty imposed here, we should demand a very high degree of procedural and substantive regularity. Moreover, even in noncapital cases, this court has not required a showing of prejudice where a “plain error” of this type is involved. (See People v. Wollenberg (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 480, 488.) In my opinion, the prosecutor’s argument here violated defendant’s fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. Finally, for the reasons set forth in my separate opinions in People v. Lewis (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 129, 179 (Simon, J., dissenting), in People v. Silagy (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 147, 184 (Simon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and in People v. Albanese (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 504, 549 (Simon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), I believe that the Illinois death penalty statute is unconstitutional and that therefore no sentence imposed under that statute can stand. For these reasons, I think the sentence of death imposed on defendant should be vacated.