Court Opinion

ID: 9520039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:29:50.5825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:27.913817
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN, dissenting: The defendant in this case and a co-defendant, Taylor, were once tried together in Iroquois County. The jury in that case was unable to agree. Thereafter, on the defendant Hill’s motion, each defendant was tried separately. The motion for severance can be understood as a trial tactic since it appears that it was Taylor who beat and killed the victim. It appears, however, that Taylor was tried first. He was found innocent of all charges. Hill was thereafter tried and found guilty. He sought a copy of the Taylor record for purposes of urging the issue of inconsistent verdicts. That contention may or may not have been successful. In any event, we aborted his effort by refusing the record. Such is fundamentally erroneous. We compound the error when the majority opinion speculates on what may have been the evidence to acquit Taylor. That which the majority does denies Hill an effective appeal. (See Douglas v. California (1963), 372 U.S. 353,9 L. Ed. 2d 811, 83 S. Ct. 814.) Indeed, the procedure followed by the majority smacks of the treatment received by Eskridge, condemned by the United States Supreme Court which permitted a trial judge to withhold a transcript if he found that a defendant had an impartial trial and no grave error occurred (Eskridge v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms and Paroles (1958), 357 U.S. 214,2 L. Ed. 2d 1269, 78 S. Ct. 1061). The procedure followed does not comply with the minimum requirements for an appeal as enunciated in a different context in Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396. Under the authority of People v. Hardemon (1977), 46 Ill. App. 3d 1052, 361 N.E.2d 680, all the evidence should be considered to ascertain the existence of an inconsistency in the verdict. We should not deprive the defendant Hill of the record and then find on the basis of pure speculation that there was no inconsistency. I would withhold judgment until such time as the defendant Hill has an opportunity to examine the record in the Taylor case and make such argument relating to inconsistent verdicts as in the judgment of his counsel may be appropriate.