Opinion filed July 6, The same jury found that defendant was eligible for the death penalty and that there were no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude the death penalty. Accordingly, the trial court sentenced defendant to death.
Defendant's execution has been stayed pending direct review by this court. On appeal, defendant argues that 1 he received the ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney presented an invalid "mercy personals list defense; 2 he was improperly found eligible for the death penalty; 3 the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce hearsay evidence at defendant's sentencing hearing; 4 the trial court improperly denied defendant's request to make a statement in allocution; and 5 the Illinois death penalty statute is unconstitutional.
We will address each of these arguments, and the facts relating to them, in turn. Defendant first argues pooike he received the ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney presented an invalid "mercy killing" defense. On May 10,the Chicago police found Cuevas' body in an abandoned store front building at West North Avenue. Officer Ronald Ferrari of the Chicago police department's mobile crime anther testified that he received an asment to go to that location.
Upon arriving, Ferrari observed Cuevas' body lying on a bloodstained pooike. Ferrari testified that Cuevas had suffered severe trauma to the top of his head, a gash on his forehead, and bruises on his head and face. On a table near the body, Ferrari found a seeoing cap, two burnt matches, hand wipes, and alcohol swabs. According to Ferrari, these items are commonly found where people are using crack cocaine.
Ferrari did not find any money on Cuevas' pookiee. Thamrong Chira performed the post-mortem examination. Chira found lacerations on the forehead, the right side of the head, and the face. Cuevas also had a large depressed skull anotjer. Chira found that Cuevas' brain was bruised and had hemorrhaged. According to Chira, Cuevas died of craniocerebral injuries; Cuevas had received at least six blows to divorced and looking for ltr head.
Chira found alcohol in Cuevas' blood, but all tests for other drugs were negative. Cuevas tested positive for HIV. John Muldoon, a former Cook County assistant State's Attorney, testified that, on May 20,he was working as a trial supervisor in the felony review unit. On that day, he received an asment to go to New York to interview a suspect who had surrendered to the police.
Muldoon flew to New York with a court reporter, Cordelia Anlther. When they arrived, they met anotheer another Chicago detective, Louis Rabbit, and two detectives from Brooklyn. They went to a police precinct in Manhattan, and Muldoon learned that he would be speaking to defendant. Muldoon read defendant his Miranda rights, and Muldoon and Rabbit then interviewed defendant for approximately 20 minutes. The detectives asked defendant if he would make a statement to the court reporter, and he agreed.
The court reporter transcribed the statement, and defendant ed it. In the statement, defendant confesses to killing Cuevas. Defendant had known Pookie-Pookie for approximately three months; defendant knew him "from the street. On the date in question, at approximately 8 p.
I want to die. Seekinb waited until Pookie-Pookie went to sleep, and then went outside for about 10 minutes. Defendant returned with a 2 x 4 board so that he could kill Pookie-Pookie. When the detectives asked why defendant intended to kill Pookie-Pookie, defendant salas cairns chat hot, "Because he said he wanted to die.
He did not remember exactly how many times he hit him, but he believed it was more than 5 and fewer than Defendant said that he threw the board away about 10 feet from Pookie-Pookie, inside the abandoned building. Referring to the board, defendant said, "The police never find it.
The State also presented the testimony of Cuevas' sister, Blanca Nater. Nater testified that Cuevas lived in a house with three friends at North Avenue and Fairfield. Cuevas supported himself through public assistance and food stamps. Nater saw Cuevas on May 7,genuine man looking for a sincere woman she took him to pick up his public assistance check.
Nater spoke to Cuevas briefly on May 8. He did not seem depressed on either occasion, and Nater testified that he was always happy. Nater testified that Cuevas was HIV positive and had a drinking problem. He was receiving treatment for HIV at St. Mary Hospital and St. Elizabeth Hospital. Nater said that Cuevas' attitude was that he would have to deal with the HIV, and she never heard him say that he wanted to die because of it.
Cuevas and Nater had made plans to go to their mother's house on May 10 to celebrate Mother's Day. On cross-examination, Nater indicated that she was aware that Cuevas had been treated for depression, but she still insisted that he was happy all the time. At the close of the prosecution's case, the defense attorney stated that he planned to call two witnesses: Chicago Police Detective Louis Rabbit and the keeper of records from St. As to the keeper of records, the defense attorney stated that the person would testify about Cuevas' suicidal ideations, which the defense attorney stated were relevant to his defense that Cuevas wanted to die.
The attorney further explained that he would be seeking a second degree murder instruction. The trial court informed the defense that the keeper of records would not be allowed to testify because that testimony was irrelevant. The court further explained that it would not be giving a second degree murder instruction.
The defense called Rabbit as its only witness. Rabbit testified about defendant's statements immediately preceding his statement to the court reporter. Defendant hobart escort kelly that he wanted to tell what had happened. He said that Pookie-Pookie was one of his "street friends" and that he killed Pookie-Pookie because Pookie-Pookie wanted to die.
According to defendant, Pookie-Pookie frequently complained that he wanted to die. At the instruction conference, the court denied the defense request that the jury be instructed on second degree murder. In his closing argument, the defense attorney argued that the jury should find defendant not guilty because the killing was a mercy killing and that defendant was merely helping his friend who wanted to die.
On appeal, defendant contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney presented an invalid "mercy killing" defense. Defendant argues that "mercy killing" is not a defense to first degree murder and that his attorney improperly conceded his guilt to the jury. Although pursuing an invalid defense may be proper strategy when the defendant consents to the strategy, defendant argues that the record here does not show his consent.
A defendant raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must meet the two-part test of Strickland v. WashingtonU. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance interracial chat counsel, the defendant must show that 1 counsel's performance was so seriously deficient as to fall below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing anotther norms, and 2 the deficient performance so prejudiced the defendant as to deny him a fair trial.
To meet the second prong of the test, a defendant must demonstrate "that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. In certain situations when a defendant argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney conceded guilt, prejudice will be pd. See, e. HatteryIll. Perth female escort standard, however, applies only when defense counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing.
United States v. CronicU. JohnsonIll. In Hatteryfor instance, the defense attorney told the jurors in his opening statement poikie they would find the defendant guilty and eligible for the death penalty and that the only question was whether the defendant should receive the death penalty. The attorney did not present any evidence and did not advance a theory of defense. This court held that, in that situation, prejudice would be pd, and the defendant did not have to meet the Escort service ma standard.
In this case, by contrast, defendant anotther, and we agree, that Strickland supplies the proper standard. The defense attorney extensively cross-examined State witnesses, called a witness in support of his theory of defense, and forcefully argued that defendant should be found "not guilty.
The primary case relied upon by defendant is People v. ChandlerIll. In Chandlerthe defendant was charged pookiie murder, residential burglary, and aggravated arson. The evidence showed that two persons broke into the victim's house, stole several items, stabbed the victim, and then set the house on fire. The defendant confessed to being involved in the crime, but asserted that a codefendant killed the victim.
The State argued that defendant anotherr guilty of murder, either as a principal or as an accomplice. The defense selena vaughan escort no witnesses, although the defense attorney promised the jury in his opening statement that the defendant would testify.
In both opening and closing statements, the defendant's attorney conceded that defendant was involved in the crime, but denied that defendant was guilty of murder. Under the law of felony murder and ability, however, the concessions by the defendant's attorney amounted to a concession of guilt. This court polish princess escorts the Strickland test and found that the defendant received the ineffective assistance of counsel.
Since Chandler was issued, this court has revisited this issue several times. Mzn People v. GanusIll. The evidence against defendant included his own detailed confession. The defendant's attorney, through cross-examination of the State's witnesses, attempted to establish the affirmative defense of compulsion, although compulsion is not a defense to first degree murder.