People v. Darr
95 N.E.3d 10
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2018Background
- Defendant David C. Darr was indicted on three counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and (initially) three counts of criminal sexual assault for conduct against his stepdaughter C.J. spanning roughly 2006–2012; jury convicted on all counts presented.
- The State was permitted to introduce other-crimes evidence, including (1) the victim J.M.’s prior allegations and defendant’s prior conviction and admissions, and (2) testimony from J.S. about earlier misconduct.
- Key testimonial evidence: C.J. described multiple incidents of sexual penetration and oral contact beginning when she was a child; family members and police officers recounted how C.J. disclosed abuse and how authorities responded.
- Defendant raised numerous trial errors on appeal (hearsay, Confrontation Clause, prosecutorial misconduct, erroneous jury instruction), argued cumulative error, and also filed a pro se ineffective-assistance (Krankel) submission contemporaneous with his notice of appeal.
- Trial court imposed mandatory public defender fee without conducting a statutorily required ability-to-pay hearing. Appellate court affirms convictions, rejects cumulative-error and Krankel claims, but vacates the public defender fee and remands with directions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Darr) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Cumulative trial error (hearsay, Confrontation, prosecutorial misconduct, jury instruction) | Errors were harmless; trial as a whole was fair. | Multiple errors cumulatively deprived Darr of a fair trial (second-prong plain error). | Affirmed: only two clear/obvious errors (a minor prosecutorial misstatement and an oral jury instruction error); cumulative effect did not undermine trial fairness. |
| 2. Admission of out-of-court statements and excited utterances | Statements were admissible for nonhearsay purposes (effect on listener) or as excited utterances. | Statements were inadmissible hearsay and violated Confrontation Clause. | Held for People: statements were offered for their effect, or fit exceptions; not hearsay for truth and thus no Crawford problem. |
| 3. Confrontation Clause (Minton relaying J.M.) | Minton’s testimony was nonhearsay (offered to explain investigation) so Crawford did not apply. | J.M.’s statements were testimonial and inadmissible without cross-examination. | Held for People: because Minton’s testimony was not offered for truth, no confrontation violation. |
| 4. Preliminary Krankel inquiry after pro se filing made with notice of appeal | No Krankel required where trial court lacked jurisdiction after appeal was perfected; Rule 606(b) and precedent govern timeliness. | Pro se filing asserted ineffective assistance and triggered mandatory Krankel inquiry. | Held for People: court lacked jurisdiction once notice of appeal was filed contemporaneously; no Krankel inquiry required and therefore no error. |
| 5. Imposition of public defender fee without hearing | Fee may be imposed only after notice and hearing on ability to pay. | Court properly imposed fee or should at most remand for hearing. | Held for Darr: State concedes and court vacates the fee; remand with directions to vacate fee and update costs (no reimposition without proper hearing). |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements absent opportunity for cross-examination)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (evaluates testimonial nature of statements)
- Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (confrontation-related principles)
- Sebby v. Illinois, 2017 IL 119445 (plain-error second-prong standard; structural/serious errors)
- Herron v. Illinois, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (plain-error framework and "actual prejudice" discussion)
- Patrick v. Illinois, 2011 IL 111666 (Krankel procedure limits and timing relative to notice of appeal)
- Ayres v. Illinois, 2017 IL 120071 (Krankel-triggering express pro se claim standard)
- Gutierrez v. Illinois, 2012 IL 111590 (mandatory ability-to-pay hearing before imposing public defender fee)
- Williams v. Illinois, 238 Ill. 2d 125 (distinction: consider testimonial analysis only when statements are hearsay offered for truth)
- Alvine v. Illinois, 173 Ill. 2d 273 (harm from conflicting jury instructions)