People v. Drake, 2019 IL 123734

Gerald Drake was charged with aggravated battery and related offenses for severe scalding burns to his six‑year‑old stepson, J.H.
At trial the State introduced J.H.’s out‑of‑court statement to a nurse that Drake poured hot water on him; the trial court admitted the statement under the medical‑treatment hearsay exception.
Pediatric expert Dr. Fujara testified the burn pattern was consistent with forcible immersion; evidence also showed the home’s hot/cold lines were reversed and water tested at 160°F.
Drake was the sole adult caregiver at the relevant time, gave false identifying information at the hospital, and was convicted after a bench trial and sentenced to 20 years.
The appellate court reversed, holding admission of the child’s statement was erroneous and, because the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove Drake guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, double jeopardy barred retrial.
The Illinois Supreme Court held retrial is not barred: although the hearsay admission was erroneous, a reviewing court may consider the evidence (including improperly admitted evidence) for sufficiency; viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence (including the excluded statement and expert testimony) was sufficient to permit retrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Drake)	Held
Whether double jeopardy bars retrial because evidence at the first trial was insufficient	Evidence presented (including the child’s hearsay statement) sufficed for a rational trier of fact to convict; retrial permitted	Evidence (minus the erroneously admitted hearsay) was insufficient; hearsay was the only ID placing Drake in the bathroom and expert testimony allowed an accidental cause	Retrial not barred; when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (and considering the excluded statement), the evidence was sufficient to allow retrial
Whether improperly admitted hearsay may be considered in assessing sufficiency for double jeopardy purposes	Precedent allows consideration of all evidence presented at the original trial, including improperly admitted evidence	Argued appellate court properly discounted the statement and still found insufficiency	Court confirmed reviewing courts may consider improperly admitted evidence in sufficiency/double jeopardy analysis and gave the excluded statement evidentiary weight

Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978) (double jeopardy precludes retrial when conviction is reversed for insufficiency of the evidence)
Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1988) (all evidence from the original trial may be considered in sufficiency review)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
People v. Lopez, 229 Ill. 2d 322 (Ill. 2008) (double jeopardy and retrial principles under Illinois law)
People v. Olivera, 164 Ill. 2d 382 (Ill. 1995) (improperly admitted evidence may be considered when assessing sufficiency)
People v. McKown, 236 Ill. 2d 278 (Ill. 2010) (retrial proper if evidence at initial trial was sufficient despite trial error)
People v. Ross, 229 Ill. 2d 255 (Ill. 2008) (appellate standards for viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution)
People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237 (Ill. 1985) (quoting Jackson standard for sufficiency of evidence)