People v. Applewhite
2016 IL App (4th) 140558
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In Nov. 2012 Kawquaun Applewhite was charged with predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and aggravated criminal sexual abuse for alleged sexual contact with G.Z., who was under 13.
- Multiple witnesses (parents, police officers, and a nurse) testified about out‑of‑court statements G.Z. made describing the incidents; the State admitted those statements under Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure §115‑10 (outcry exception for child victims under 13).
- The trial court held pretrial §115‑10 hearings and found the time, content, and circumstances of G.Z.’s out‑of‑court statements sufficiently reliable to admit them; the recorded police interview of G.Z. was also admitted and played to the jury.
- During voir dire the judge asked panels collectively about experience with being a victim or having family who were victims and offered private sidebar inquiry for sensitive disclosures; defense asked to question venire members individually about sexual‑abuse experience but the court declined direct public questioning.
- At trial the jury acquitted Applewhite of predatory criminal sexual assault but convicted him of aggravated criminal sexual abuse; he was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment and the court imposed a $1,250 fee for court‑appointed counsel without a formal §113‑3.1 hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of multiple out‑of‑court statements under §115‑10 | §115‑10 allows admission of corroborative outcry statements if court finds sufficient safeguards of reliability | Admission amounted to improper use of prior consistent statements and cumulative, prejudicial evidence | Affirmed: §115‑10 is a substantive hearsay exception for child outcry; consistency with trial testimony does not bar admissibility; court did not abuse discretion |
| Cumulative nature of multiple §115‑10 witnesses | Multiple witnesses can corroborate; statute contains no numerical limit | Repetition of similar outcry testimony was unnecessarily cumulative and prejudicial | Affirmed: admission of several §115‑10 witnesses permissible; no abuse of discretion on these facts |
| Voir dire — ability to individually question venire about sexual‑abuse experience | Court’s collective questioning and offer of private sidebar preserved impartiality and Rule 431(a) aims | Defendant should have been allowed to directly question prospective jurors individually to uncover bias | Affirmed: trial court’s voir dire procedure was within broad discretion and reasonably ensured discovery of bias |
| Fee for court‑appointed counsel without hearing (§113‑3.1) | Fee can be imposed but statute requires a hearing considering defendant’s affidavit/financial info | Fee was imposed without proper §113‑3.1 hearing, so it must be vacated | Fee vacated and matter remanded for a proper §113‑3.1 hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Holloway, 177 Ill.2d 1 (Ill. 1997) (legislative purpose and rationale for admitting child outcry statements under §115‑10)
- People v. Williams, 193 Ill.2d 306 (Ill. 2000) (standard of review for admission under §115‑10)
- People v. Becker, 239 Ill.2d 215 (Ill. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- People v. Somers, 2013 IL 114054 (Ill. 2013) (requirement that §113‑3.1 hearing be adequate before imposing public‑defender fee)
- People v. Anderson, 225 Ill. App.3d 636 (Ill. App. 1992) (discussion of potential prejudice from repetitive §115‑10 testimony; caution about cumulative evidence in closely balanced cases)
- People v. Lofton, 303 Ill. App.3d 501 (Ill. App. 1999) (§115‑10 does not limit number of witnesses who may testify to the outcry)
- People v. Moss, 275 Ill. App.3d 748 (Ill. App. 1995) (rejecting limitation to one corroborating witness under §115‑10)
- People v. Branch, 158 Ill. App.3d 338 (Ill. App. 1987) (supporting admission of multiple witnesses’ corroborative statements to aid child victims)