Court Opinion

ID: 9819169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:19:22.357868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:44:41.212480
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BRADEN, specially concurring: I agree with the majority’s conclusion affirming defendant’s conviction and sentence. However, I am compelled to disagree with the finding that the accomplice instruction should have been requested by defense counsel concerning the testimony of Williams. This instruction should be given if, from the totality of the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence, there is probable cause to believe not merely that the witness was present and failed to approve of the crime, but that he participated in the planning or commission of the crime. People v. Henderson, 142 Ill. 2d 258, 315, 568 N.E.2d 1234, 1261 (1990). Even though Williams was an active participant in the drug operation in which defendant was involved, he was not a participant in the commission or planning of the murder of Rivera by Love. By all indications, Williams did not know or foresee that this unfortunate incident would occur. There is strong support in the evidence that the murder of Rivera was a separate, independent, and unconnected crime and that Williams did not participate in its commission or planning. For these reasons, I believe that defense counsel was not ineffective because of his failure to request the accomplice instruction.