Court Opinion

ID: 9729332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:32:11.547433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:56.972788
License: Public Domain

Supplemental Opinion Upon Denial of Rehearing JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the opinion of the court: At the time of defendant’s trial, the supreme court rules did not provide for discovery at a death penalty hearing. See Foster, 119 Ill. 2d at 102-03. Our holding in this case followed the dictates of the rules then in effect. Shortly after this opinion was filed, this court determined that the discovery rules should be extended to death penalty hearings. At a death penalty hearing, the sentencing authority is asked to impose the ultimate penalty upon the defendant. We believe it is important that the sentencing authority possess the fullest information possible with respect to the defendant’s life, character, criminal record and the circumstances of the particular offense. People v. Williams, 161 Ill. 2d 1, 62-63 (1994); People v. Edgeston, 157 Ill. 2d 201, 236 (1993). Allowing discovery furthers the goal of presenting complete information regarding the defendant to the sentencing authority. Allowing discovery also addresses the concerns expressed by the legislature in section 9 — 1(e) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/9 — 1(e) (West 1996)) that both the State and the defense have a fair opportunity to rebut testimony at the death penalty hearing. We recognize, however, that in the context of a death penalty hearing, discovery will not necessarily be reciprocal. Whereas the defendant cannot be compelled to provide discovery unless the State makes reciprocal disclosures, disclosure of information by the prosecution does not automatically entitle the State to disclosure from the defense. People v. Williams, 87 Ill. 2d 161, 165-66 (1981). Certain procedural safeguards embodied in our constitution serve to limit discovery by the defendant to the State to the end that a defendant will not be sentenced to death by the use of evidence he unwittingly provides. As the Supreme Court observed in Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 68 L. Ed. 2d 359, 101 S. Ct. 1866 (1981): “Just as the Fifth Amendment prevents a criminal defendant from being made ' “the deluded instrument of his own conviction,” ’ [citation] it protects him as well from being made the ‘deluded instrument’ of his own execution.” Estelle, 451 U.S. at 462, 68 L. Ed. 2d at 369, 101 S. Ct. at 1873. Pretrial discovery of defense information, whether for use at the guilt phase of trial or at the death penalty hearing, remains subject to constitutional limitations and limitations based on attorney-client or other privilege. The trial courts must do all they can to ensure that each defendant receives a fair trial and a fair sentencing hearing. Our amended discovery rules are effective as of March 1, 2001. In the case at bar, upon remand, the State and defendant may renew their requests for discovery. In granting any request by the State, the trial court should consider and safeguard defendant’s constitutional rights. JUSTICE CARMAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Supplemental Dissent Upon Denial of Rehearing