People v. Chatman, 2024 IL 129133

Micheal D. Chatman was charged with first degree murder in connection to the 2018 shooting death of Ricky Green in Champaign, Illinois.
The State sought to introduce statements made by Dominique “Dee” Collins, a witness who had recounted a confession from Chatman but could not be located at trial and was allegedly threatened into hiding.
The Champaign County circuit court allowed the introduction of Collins’s statements under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception, finding both unavailability and that Chatman acted to keep Collins from testifying.
The defense argued the State lacked good-faith, reasonable efforts to secure Collins’s attendance, thus violating Chatman’s right to confrontation and evidentiary rules.
Both the guilty verdict at trial and appellate affirmance were based in part on the admitted statements; the Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the procedures used to admit Collins’s statements.

Issue	Chatman's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the State must show good-faith efforts to secure an unavailable witness (forfeiture by wrongdoing)	State must show good-faith, reasonable efforts under Rule 804(a)(5)	Initially argued it was not required, but later did not dispute the need for showing good faith	Yes, State must show good-faith, reasonable efforts as a predicate for admittance
Whether State showed sufficient good-faith efforts to locate Collins	Efforts were insufficient—additional, reasonable steps could have been taken	Efforts were reasonable given circumstances; witness intentionally avoided being found	Good-faith efforts were reasonable under totality of circumstances
Whether admission of Collins’s statement violated confrontation rights	Admission without proper efforts violated Sixth Amendment rights	Efforts satisfied constitutional requirements after considering circumstances	No violation; confrontation rights not infringed

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (defines Confrontation Clause requirements and hearsay exceptions relevant to forfeiture by wrongdoing)
Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1968) (witness is not unavailable unless good-faith effort is made to procure witness)
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1980) (prosecution must show good-faith effort to obtain witness before admitting hearsay)
United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31 (U.S. 2003) (reasonableness depends on totality of circumstances, not rigid rules)
Hardy v. Cross, 565 U.S. 65 (U.S. 2011) (prosecution not required to exhaust all conceivable steps; efforts must only be reasonable)
People v. Hanson, 238 Ill. 2d 74 (Ill. 2010) (Illinois application of forfeiture by wrongdoing exception)
People v. Torres, 2012 IL 111302 (Ill. 2012) (state must produce or demonstrate unavailability of the declarant)