Court Opinion

ID: 9739234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:10:58.508197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:10.902437
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, specially concurring: I agree with the majority’s final disposition of the issues raised in this appeal. However, I disagree with the majority’s use of this case as the vehicle to adopt the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Payne v. Tennessee (1991), 501 U.S__, 115 L. Ed. 2d 720, 111 S. Ct. 2597. The challenged victim impact statements in this case, unlike those in Payne, involved statements of victims of defendant’s other crimes. Recognizing this distinction, the majority decides it will not consider defendant’s asserted error on the narrow issue of the admissibility of victim impact statements. It nevertheless seizes this opportunity to “align [itself] with the Court rule on this subject.” I believe that the majority, in so deciding, has acted prematurely. In one broad stroke, the majority appears to overrule a significant and settled principle of law in Illinois. I would advocate a more prudent approach on so important an issue. This court’s reconsideration of the admissibility of Payne-type victim impact statements is better left to a future time and case, where the parties on each side of the issue have been afforded the benefit and opportunity of full and fair argument.