Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Wiley

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided March 30, 1995No. 71320Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Harrison

I agree that we should affirm Wiley’s murder convictions. I dissent because I would reverse Wiley’s convictions for armed robbery and remand for a new sentencing hearing.

Under our form of jurisprudence, the State must prove the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Although circumstantial evidence may sometimes suffice to meet that burden, a conviction cannot be founded upon speculation or conjecture. (See People v. Burnside (1985), 133 Ill. App. 3d 453, 458.) Such a result is unconstitutional. A conviction based on a record lacking any relevant evidence as to a crucial…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Vachon v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. People v. BurnsideAppellate Court of Illinois · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API