Court Opinion

ID: 9734072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:24:33.498603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:45.400948
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I dissent and would affirm the judgment of the appellate court. I agree with the appellate court that the photographic identification employed in this case was impermissibly and unnecessarily suggestive. The majority states: “More importantly, the evidence shows that Norma Lederer’s out-of-court identification was reliable.” (94 Ill. 2d at 520.) Considering that when she made the identification she had already been shown the clothing taken from defendant, that she was shown a Polaroid photograph, and admittedly the mask worn by the robber to a great extent covered his features, this is, at best, a questionable conclusion. I do not agree with the majority that the introduction of Patterson’s statement into evidence was harmless error. The appellate court, in its well-reasoned opinion, has clearly demonstrated that the admission of the testimony was highly prejudicial and not harmless. (See 100 Ill. App. 3d 17, 22-26.) It should be further noted, as pointed out by the appellate court, that the State’s Attorney exacerbated the error by making repeated references to Patterson’s statement in closing argument. I agree that there was overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt. He was nevertheless entitled to a fair trial. He did not receive a fair trial, and I would reverse the judgment and remand for that purpose.