People v. Britz
123 Ill. 2d 446, 528 N.E.2d 703, 124 Ill. Dec. 15 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An expert witness testifying as to a defendant's sanity may not base their opinion solely or substantially on the defendant's own uncorroborated, self-serving statements about their history of substance abuse and intoxication. Such an opinion is inadmissible because it lacks a reliable foundation of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.
Facts:
- On January 16, 1985, DeWayne Britz was at Tackett Wheels, a used car dealership where he was a former employee.
- After observing the owner, Paul Tackett, make a cash sale, Britz struck Tackett in the head with a pistol and stole his pickup truck.
- The stolen truck overheated and broke down, and Britz stopped on the side of the road.
- Mimi C. Covert stopped her car and offered Britz a ride into town.
- After entering Covert's car, Britz pulled a gun on her, robbed her of money and valium, and forced her to attempt to withdraw money from several ATMs.
- Britz then directed Covert to a remote area, where he sexually assaulted her in the backseat of her car.
- As Britz was driving afterwards, Covert jumped from the moving car and ran.
- Britz stopped the car, shot Covert in the head as she fled, and then shot her multiple more times after she fell to the ground, killing her and hiding her body in a ditch.
Procedural Posture:
- DeWayne Britz was charged by information in Sangamon County with murder and several other felonies.
- The trial court granted Britz's motion for a change of venue, transferring the case to Champaign County due to pretrial publicity.
- Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine to preclude Britz's expert witnesses from testifying that he was insane based on his self-reported drug and alcohol use.
- The trial court granted the motion, ruling that the experts could testify about objective tests but could not recount or base their opinions on Britz's self-serving statements.
- A jury found Britz guilty on all counts.
- The same jury, after a separate hearing, found that aggravating factors existed and no mitigating factors were sufficient to preclude the death penalty.
- The trial court sentenced Britz to death, which triggered an automatic, direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Illinois law, consistent with the rules of evidence, permit a non-treating expert witness to testify regarding a defendant's insanity defense when the expert's opinion is based almost entirely on the defendant's own self-serving statements about his drug and alcohol consumption?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cunningham
No, Illinois law does not permit an expert's opinion on insanity that is based almost entirely on the defendant's self-serving statements. The court held that while Federal Rules of Evidence 703 and 705 (as adopted in Wilson v. Clark) allow an expert to rely on facts not in evidence, those facts must be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field. Here, the defense experts did not rely on police reports, witness statements, or medical records from rehabilitation centers; instead, they based their opinions substantially, if not totally, on Britz's own uncorroborated declarations about his history of substance abuse and his consumption on the night of the murder. The court reasoned that allowing such testimony would make the expert a mere conduit for the defendant's story, effectively permitting the defendant to testify without being subject to cross-examination. Furthermore, the court noted that under People v. Free, voluntary intoxication only supports an insanity defense if it results in a permanent type of insanity, which was not evidenced here.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of Illinois's rules on expert testimony, particularly in the context of the insanity defense. It establishes a crucial limitation on the principle from People v. Anderson, confirming that an expert cannot act as a mere mouthpiece for a defendant's uncorroborated, self-serving narrative. By requiring a more objective and reliable foundation for expert opinions, the court reinforces the trial judge's gatekeeping role in preventing the introduction of unreliable evidence. This holding protects the integrity of the trial process by ensuring that a defendant cannot use an expert to circumvent cross-examination and present their version of events to the jury unchallenged.
