Court Opinion

ID: 9730919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:28:05.393709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:11.006358
License: Public Domain

McNAMARA, P.J., dissenting: I dissent. I find no infirmity, constitutional or otherwise, in the State’s exercise of its peremptory challenges. (Swain v. Alabama (1965), 380 U.S. 202, 13 L. Ed. 2d 759, 85 S. Ct. 824; People v. Harris (1959), 17 Ill. 2d 446, 161 N.E.2d 809; People v. Teague (1982), 108 Ill. App. 3d 891, 439 N.E.2d 1066; People v. Fleming (1980), 91 Ill. App. 3d 99, 413 N.E.2d 1330.) This is particularly true in the present case, where by agreement of the parties no report of proceedings was made of the voir dire process and where defendant first objected two days after selection of the jury. Since defendant’s only assignment of error is the State’s use of its peremptory challenges, I would affirm the judgment of conviction.