In re Brandon P., 2014 IL 116653

Respondent Brandon P., under 17, was adjudicated delinquent for aggravated criminal sexual abuse of his 3-year-old cousin M.J.
Section 115-10 hearings were held to determine the admissibility of M.J.’s statements to her mother and to Detective Hogren.
M.J. was unavailable at trial; the trial court initially admitted Hogren’s statements as non-testimonial under §115-10, later recognizing they were testimonial.
DNA evidence showed a semen indicator on vaginal swab but no sperm; M.J.’s underwear had male/female DNA mixture with seven loci not excluded for respondent.
Teresa testified to M.J.’s spontaneous outcry shortly after respondent left, and Lucas corroborated some facts; Detective Hogren testified with additional details.
The appellate court affirmed; the Supreme Court held the erroneous admission of Hogren’s testimonial statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether M.J.’s statements to Hogren were testimonial and violated the confrontation clause.	State conceded M.J. was unavailable and argued statements were non-testimonial.	Respondent argued the statements were testimonial and their admission violated Crawford.	Yes; statements were testimonial and their admission violated the confrontation clause.
Whether M.J. was unavailable for purposes of §115-10 at trial.	State conceded unavailability for §115-10 purposes.	Appellate court erred in finding availability for cross-examination.	The Court held M.J. was unavailable; the admission violated Crawford.
Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the other evidence.	Admission of Hogren’s testimony was harmless because other evidence was overwhelming.	Admission could have contributed to the verdict; not harmless.	Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; properly admitted evidence overwhelmingly supported guilt.
Whether the DNA and other properly admitted evidence sufficed to sustain the verdict despite the error.	DNA evidence corroborated M.J.’s account and supported guilt.	DNA evidence was inconclusive and could not exclude respondent.	The properly admitted evidence, including DNA, overwhelmingly supported guilt; the error was harmless.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause needs; testimonial vs. non-testimonial)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (testimony nature; ongoing emergency vs. past events)
In re Rolandis G., 232 Ill. 2d 13 (Ill. 2008) (harmless error if properly admitted evidence overwhelmingly supports conviction)
People v. Stechly, 225 Ill. 2d 246 (Ill. 2007) (unavailability and reliability considerations for §115-10)
In re T.T., 384 Ill. App. 3d 147 (Ill. App. 2007) (harmless error analysis in testimonial hearsay)
People v. Nunez, 236 Ill. 2d 488 (Ill. 2010) (reiterations on review of concessions)