Court Opinion

ID: 9530000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:56:12.015592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:58.357523
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE CRAVEN, dissenting: I dissent. Defendants Harness and Rrummell put forth an alibi defense. Each was consistent only up to the time the crime was committed. Thereafter each defendant told a different story as to the events of the remainder of the evening. The statement of defendant Brummell, as related by a State witness, could be used to impeach the testimony of defendant Harness. I agree with the general rule set forth by the majority that an attorney is placed in a conflict situation by the representation of two defendants only when the defenses of those defendants are antagonistic. (People v. Smith (1974), 19 Ill. App. 3d 138, 310 N.E.2d 818; People v. Dickens (1974), 19 Ill. App. 3d 419, 311 N.E.2d 705.) The alibi defenses here were antagonistic and mutually exclusive. A like situation arose in People v. Bopp (1917), 279 Ill. 184, 116 N.E. 679, where two defendants put forth different alibi defenses. In reversing defendant Bopp’s conviction because his co-defendant’s attorney was assigned to represent him, the court said: “The defenses of these two defendants were not the same. Each was an alibi, but each was dependent upon different testimony from the other. It might well be that testimony tending to exculpate one would tend to inculpate the other.” (279 Ill. 184, 191.) While the alibis at issue in Bopp were diametrically opposed, the theory underlying the court’s opinion is equally applicable here where only the post-crime alibis were divergent. We need not so ration legal representation as to impose upon counsel the burden of conflicting representation. Defendants Harness and Brummell were denied effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial. I would reverse and grant a new trial.