Court Opinion

ID: 9819569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:27:57.271181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:23.424970
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully disagree with the majority, and I would affirm. Beck’s testimony was properly admitted, and the prosecutor’s comments in his rebuttal closing argument were properly made in response to defense counsel’s closing argument comments. By holding as it does, the majority chooses to ignore precedent, including that from the Fourth District, regarding the determination of when a defendant’s statement can be characterized as plea related and therefore inadmissible under Rule 402(f) (177 Ill. 2d R. 402(f)). In People v. Burns, 188 Ill. App. 3d 716, 722, 544 N.E.2d 466, 469 (1989), the defendant was arrested and made a statement en route to the station house that “ ‘he could help out,’ ” and that he could “ ‘do in someone in Wisconsin’ ” as long as he was not “ ‘thrown in jail.’ ” This court held that those statements were not plea related and, therefore, were admissible. Burns, 188 Ill. App. 3d at 723, 544 N.E.2d at 470. We found that the rudiments of a negotiated plea were lacking — nothing indicated that the defendant intended to enter a guilty plea to the charges for which he was arrested. Burns, 188 Ill. App. 3d at 723, 544 N.E.2d at 470. The record showed only that the defendant was bargaining for his immediate release and did not indicate that the defendant demonstrated a subjective expectation to negotiate a plea. Burns, 188 Ill. App. 3d at 723, 544 N.E.2d at 470; see also People v. Tennin, 123 Ill. App. 3d 894, 898, 463 N.E.2d 202, 205 (1984) (“I want to make a deal” found not to be plea related); Ward, 192 Ill. App. 3d 544, 549 N.E.2d 1120; Rolih, 233 Ill. App. 3d at 488, 599 N.E.2d at 197 (court found Rule 402(f) did not apply to the defendant’s statements that he “ ‘wished to cooperate in any way possible for future consideration of the charges that would be pending against him’ ” and that “ ‘he would do anything to assist [the police] which would in turn assist [the defendant] with — in consideration of the charges’ ”); cf. Friedman, 79 Ill. 2d at 350, 403 N.E.2d at 234 (the defendant’s statement that “ ‘[i]f I’m convicted, I would rather go to a [flederal prison as opposed to a State prison’ ” followed his inquiry of “ ‘making a deal’ ”; court found that where a preamble is delivered, such as defendant’s inquiry related to “making a deal,” it could not be ignored and was found to be a clear indication of the defendant’s intent to pursue plea negotiations). Not every statement made by a defendant in hopes of some concession is necessarily plea related, especially when the statement is as general and vague as the statement made by defendant in the present case, and defendant never indicated a willingness to plead guilty or even under what terms he would be willing to bargain for a guilty plea. The majority notes that “[t]he prosecution here did not attempt to introduce any admissions defendant made to Beck, only the fact that defendant inquired about the possibility of a plea negotiation.” 345 Ill. App. 3d at 827. The reason the prosecution did not attempt to introduce any admissions is because defendant did not make any. Further, the prosecution did not tell the jury that defendant inquired about the possibility of a plea negotiation. Rather, the prosecution simply commented that defendant asked what the police officer “could do for him if he cooperated,” more precisely, what benefits could defendant derive if he cooperated — not if he pleaded guilty. To rule as the majority permits even the slightest remark by a defendant to be characterized as a plea-related discussion. Moreover, the prosecutor .properly commented about defendant’s statement in his rebuttal closing argument in response to defense counsel’s closing argument. The prosecutor’s remarks were properly made in response to defense counsel’s closing argument. People v. Hudson, 157 Ill. 2d 401, 441, 626 N.E.2d 161, 178 (1993) (the prosecutor may respond to comments by defense counsel that clearly invite a response). Here, defendant’s attorney stated in closing: “Now, another thing you need to look at is some of the other testimony. Now, they bring in *** Detective Beck, but [defendant] didn’t make an admission to Detective Beck. The only thing Eric did was [say he] wanted to pray. I don’t think prayer is an admission in this case. If you’re faced with difficult situation; you’ve been arrested; I think it’s only natural that you would want to pray.” It was defense counsel who referred to defendant’s conversation with Beck, and it was in response to those remarks that the prosecutor in his rebuttal argued: “[D]efendant, also, mentioned the fact that he wanted to pray to his mother is not an indication of guilt, but you remember what Office Beck told you? He didn’t just want to pray with his mother. He wanted to know what he would get or what kind of compensation or what kind of agreement or whatever he would get if he cooperated. And, [l]adies and [g]entlemen, only guilty men want to know what they get if they cooperate.” Defendant clearly opened the door, and the prosecutor could properly respond to defense counsel’s comments and draw reasonable inferences therefrom. Moreover, it is inconsistent to allow defense counsel to fail to object to Beck’s testimony at trial, to comment on the testimony in his closing argument, and then to argue on appeal that the prosecutor improperly used that testimony in his rebuttal argument.