Court Opinion

ID: 9519450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:16:40.601421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:23.281070
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE UNDERWOOD, dissenting: The law of this State is that, “if the independent evidence tends to prove that an offense occurred, then such evidence, if corroborative of the facts contained in the confession, may be considered along with the confession in establishing the corpus delicti. In such event, the independent evidence need not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that an offense did occur.” (People v. Willingham (1982), 89 Ill. 2d 352, 361; see also People v. Perfecto (1962), 26 Ill. 2d 228, 229.) In this case it is undisputed that the defendant and the victim slept in the basement on the night in question and that the victim’s rectum showed signs of irritation about 13 days after the alleged occurrence. The defendant’s confession is explicit as to the details of the incident in question, and it is undisputed that the confession was given in a written, signed statement that followed the giving of warnings in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602. There is no contention by the defendant that the confession was involuntary. The rule that the majority invokes is designed to protect against untrue confessions. (People v. Dalton (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 22, 29.) The rule has been criticized, and it has been suggested that a cautionary jury instruction would be preferable. (7 Wigmore, Evidence sec. 2070, at 510 (Chadbourn rev. ed. 1978).) To a great extent the protection of the rule is today afforded by the Miranda warnings. The crime charged here is one for which corroborating physical evidence is likely in many cases to be absent. The strict application of the corroboration rule in a case such as this one seems, to me, inappropriate, and I would not set aside the jury verdict.