Court Opinion

ID: 9522401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:24:45.207601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:42.754009
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE UNDERWOOD, dissenting in part: I do not share my colleagues’ opinion that the evidence was insufficient to support the armed-robbery conviction. The majority complains that evidence of the robbery here was “inconclusive,” but I know of no reviewing court which requires “conclusive” proof of an offense to sustain a conviction. Rather, it is our duly to affirm a conviction unless the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable or unsatisfactory as to raise a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt. (People v. Lewis (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 129, 151.) When circumstantial evidence is relied upon by the State, as it was here, the conviction should be affirmed if such evidence “is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence ***.” People v. Rhodes (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 241, 249. The majority does not advance any hypothesis of innocence, reasonable or otherwise. No attempt is made to reconcile the critical fact that Lampton was found on the evening of his death without any money, despite uncontradicted evidence that he had cashed a $286.88 paycheck earlier that day. No explanation is offered for the disappearance of Lampton’s watch and wallet, and I certainly do not understand the majority’s virtual disregard of Howell’s statements that he saw defendant bend over Lampton’s body, that defendant went through Lampton’s pockets, and that defendant appeared to remove Lampton’s watch. Thus, while acknowledging that armed robbery may be proved by circumstantial evidence, the majority seemingly ignores such evidence here. Why did defendant approach and shoot a complete stranger if not to rob him? Why did defendant bend over the body after the murder and go through the victim’s pockets? What became of Lampton’s money, wallet and watch? Why did Howell claim that defendant removed Lampton’s watch? The majority opinion leaves these questions unanswered, and I can conceive of no hypothesis from this record that is both reasonable and consistent with defendant’s innocence. I would therefore affirm the armed-robbery conviction. The majority decision also reverses the death sentence, since the statutory aggravating factor has been eliminated. Because I would affirm the armed-robbery conviction, and find no error in the death sentence hearing, I would affirm the death sentence as well. RYAN, C.J., and MORAN, J., join in this dissent.