Court Opinion

ID: 9713897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:25:36.939567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:21.443265
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE BARRY, specially concurring: I agree that the State’s evidence was insufficient to establish defendant’s age and that age was an essential element of the crime charged under the rule of law long recognized by Illinois courts. However, I do not agree that defendant’s constitutional rights were violated by the interrogating officer. The evidence was conflicting as to whether defendant told Officer Childers his age before or after he was given Miranda warnings. The trial court overruled defendant’s objection based upon the ground that he was asked his age before he was given the required warnings. The court’s ruling obviously involved a factual determination that the evidence that defendant gave his age after he received the warnings was more credible than the evidence to the contrary. This factual determination turned upon the trial court’s interpretation of Officer Childers’ somewhat confusing testimony. First she stated that she gave the warnings before asking any questions. Then she said she asked his name and age before giving the warnings. Finally, she said she could not recall. Recognizing that the trial court was in a position superior to ours for judging this testimony, I would not say that defendant’s admission as to his age was erroneously admitted into evidence. Therefore, while I concur in the result reached by the majority, I do not join in ruling that the trial court erred in admitting Officer Childers’ testimony as to defendant’s age.