Court Opinion

ID: 9717417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:03:12.342172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:53.149695
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GALASSO, specially concurring: It is my opinion the defendant waived the issue of improper closing arguments by the prosecutor, by failing to object and failing to raise the issue in the posttrial motion. People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176 (1988). Every trial court judge should be given the opportunity to correct errors at the trial court level. The appellate process is long, difficult, and not cost effective, when compared to a posttrial motion brought before the judge who had the ability (as in a case like this) to determine the emphasis and impact of such a statement. I do not feel the statement of the prosecutor referring to a law enforcement officer’s disincentive to commit perjury due to loss of income or a career can be considered proper. Giving the prosecutor the right to comment on the weight of an officer’s testimony, based upon a theory of disincentive for not being truthful, would, in order to be fair, require that the trial court permit the defense to inquire of all law enforcement witnesses about the incentives or career enhancements that may occur based upon successful prosecution. This court should not go that far. In considering Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 3.19, Committee Note, at 89 (3d ed. 1992), the supreme court committee recommended that no instruction be given on the issue of weighing a police officer’s testimony. To allow such comment in argument without a court’s instruction would be inappropriate.