Court Opinion

ID: 9720936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:45:05.021169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:22.411126
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KILBRIDE, specially concurring: I concur in the majority’s decision but write separately because, although I agree with the result reached by the majority, I disagree with the majority’s reliance on a conflict of interest analysis. The majority should have decided this case on the waiver issue. The majority concludes that to constitute a per se conflict, it is not enough that the State’s witness be a potential witness; rather, the State’s witness must be an actual witness in the case. 209 Ill. 2d at 346. An “actual” conflict is not necessary to constitute a per se conflict; instead, there need only be a “potential” conflict. It is enough that the defendant’s attorney is representing or has represented a “potential” State’s witness. This court has consistently held that a “possible conflict of interest” dictated “application of a per se rule.” See People v. Lawson, 163 Ill. 2d 187, 217-18 (1994); see also People v. Barrow, 133 Ill. 2d 226, 254 (1989) (potential conflict of interest may have precluded attorney from properly cross-examining certain witnesses the State indicated it may call at trial); People v. Thomas, 131 Ill. 2d 104, 111 (1989) (defendant need not show prejudice under the per se rule when his attorney had “ ‘an actual or possible conflict of professional interests’ ”), quoting People v. Washington, 101 Ill. 2d 104, 110 (1984); People v. Franklin, 75 Ill. 2d 173, 176 (1979) (per se rule provides that where defense counsel is involved in an actual or potential conflict of interest, it is unnecessary for the defendant to establish actual prejudice). It will not always be possible to know at the time of the disclosure of the potential conflict whether the State’s witness will “actually” testify. Here, when the State disclosed the potential conflict to the trial court, it stated that Hernandez “could potentially be a witness for the State in its case in chief, and even more likely perhaps in aggravation if the case would proceed *** for a death penalty sentencing.” Hernandez’s involvement in this case was addressed by both parties in opening statements, by nearly every witness at trial, and in closing arguments. If the State had called Hernandez to testify, both parties concede that a per se conflict would have developed. Accordingly, I would hold that defense counsel’s contemporaneous representation of defendant and Hernandez created a per se conflict of interest. I would, however, hold that defendant’s conviction should not be reversed because he was made aware of the potential conflict and knowingly waived his right to conflict-free counsel. The majority does not address the actual appellate court holding as briefed and argued by the parties. The appellate court decision was based on whether defendant’s waiver of any potential conflict of interest was knowing or intelligent. The majority opinion mentions in the background of the case that defendant waived the conflict in the trial court, but then makes no mention of this in the analysis. The defendant retained the attorney and then waived the potential conflict in open court. The appellate court decision should be reversed on the basis that defendant waived any potential conflict. JUSTICE RARICK joins in this special concurrence.