People v. Denson
2014 IL 116231
| Ill. | 2014Background
- Darren Denson was convicted by jury in Kane County of first degree murder, armed robbery, and home invasion, with a natural-life sentence for murder and concurrent terms for the other counts.
- Before trial the State moved in limine to admit certain coconspirator hearsay statements; Denson objected in writing and a hearing was held; the court granted the State’s motion.
- Denson challenged the rulings on appeal; the appellate court affirmed, finding forfeiture based on lack of a defense motion in limine and lack of contemporaneous objection, and affirmed on the merits with one harmless error.
- Denson argued the appellate court erred in (1) forfeiture analysis and (2) admitting three coconspirator statements and a prior consistent statement.
- The Supreme Court held that, in criminal cases, preservation requires raising the issue in a motion in limine or a contemporaneous trial objection and in the posttrial motion; Denson preserved the issue here by timely response and posttrial motion.
- The Court affirmed the appellate court’s merits ruling, agreeing that the coconspirator statements were properly admitted with one harmless exception, and reversed the forfeiture analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of the hearsay issue | Denson preserved by response and posttrial motion. | Forfeiture due to no defense motion and no contemporaneous objection. | Contemporaneous objection not required; preservation satisfied. |
| Admissibility of coconspirator statements | Statements were made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy and properly admitted. | Statements were inadmissible hearsay and improperly admitted. | Appellate court's merits analysis affirmed; statements admitted with one harmless exception. |
| Prior consistent statement | Prior consistent statement properly admissible under cross-examination framework. | Prior consistent statement should be excluded absent proper grounds. | Appellate court correctly admitted the prior consistent statement; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cox, 195 Ill. 2d 378 (2001) (preservation requires motion in limine or contemporaneous objection and posttrial motion)
- People v. Hudson, 157 Ill. 2d 401 (1993) (preservation method in criminal cases)
- People v. Boclair, 129 Ill. 2d 458 (1989) (criminal forfeiture rules; contemporaneous objection not required for in limine issues)
- People v. Maldonado, 398 Ill. App. 3d 401 (2010) (reply to motion in limine can preserve an issue when also raised in posttrial motion (appellate standard cited))
- Heritage Standard Bank & Trust Co. v. Illinois, 163 Ill. 2d 498 (1994) (civil forfeiture rule requiring contemporaneous objection)
- People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176 (1988) (criminal posttrial motion prerequisite for appeal)
- People v. Gilliam, 172 Ill. 2d 484 (1996) (issues not raisable in a motion in limine; context differs from Cruz-type issues)
- People v. M.W., 232 Ill. 2d 408 (2009) (routine trial errors not raisable in motion in limine)
- Simmons v. Garces, 198 Ill. 2d 541 (2002) (contemporaneous objection requirement in civil context guidance cited)