Court Opinion

ID: 9739437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:14:48.337612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:12.193968
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE TULLY, dissenting: I cannot agree with the majority view that the comments of the trial judge in this case require the sentences to be vacated. The testimony of both victims clearly indicates that race was at least a partial motive in the violent robbery and sexual assault of two young college students. During the assault, one of the assailants stated: “You white girls don’t know what’s good for you.” After Reynolds penetrated one of the victims for the third time, he said something about himself being black and her being white. The majority finds that the trial judge improperly commented upon the possible racial motivation behind the crime and that it was improperly considered in sentencing. I disagree. In this instance, the statement of the trial judge was not an attempt to inject his own private prejudice into the judicial process, but rather was a comment on the evidence presented at trial. Where testimony regarding racial motivation is properly admitted into evidence without objection, and does not rise to the level of plain error, a new trial is not warranted. (See People v. Eddmonds (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 44, 461 N.E.2d 347.) Although the judge would have been wise to “hold his tongue,” it was not unduly prejudicial for the judge to consider racial motivation, given the explicit testimony of the victims in this case. Even if improper, the comment was not so egregious as to warrant a new sentencing hearing. Secondly, the actual sentences of the defendants, when compared with the maximum sentences allowed by statute, do not reflect any apparent taint or prejudice by the trial judge. The maximum consecutive sentence permitted would have been the sum of the maximum terms for the two most serious felonies under section 5 — 8—2 of the Unified Code of Corrections. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, pars. 1005 — 8—2, 1005 — 8— 4.) Under section 1005 — 8—2, dealing with extended terms, the maximum consecutive sentence for either defendant would be 120 years. Both defendants received 69 years, which is considerably less than the maximum. For all of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.