People v. Griffin, 203 N.E.3d 383

Defendant Keith Griffin was arraigned May 1, 2018; a public defender was appointed and discovery was provided before trial.
At status hearings in August and September 2018, Griffin insisted on demanding a speedy trial over his attorney’s advice that more preparation and witness interviews were needed; the court personally admonished Griffin and set trial for October 3, 2018.
Bench trial: eyewitness Theresa Jones testified Griffin retrieved a loaded shotgun from the shared bedroom and pointed it at her; police were let into the apartment, recovered the shotgun from that bedroom, and officers later chased and arrested Griffin outside the building.
The State introduced body-camera videos and certified prior convictions; defense argued Jones was biased and there was no physical evidence linking Griffin to the gun.
The trial court found Griffin guilty of armed habitual criminal and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon (merged into armed habitual criminal) and sentenced him to 8 years; he appealed arguing (1) the court erred in honoring his pro se speedy-trial demand over counsel’s objection and (2) hearsay admitted at trial denied him a fair trial/amounted to ineffective assistance for failure to object.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by honoring defendant’s demand for a speedy trial over counsel’s objection	The court may honor a defendant’s knowing demand for immediate trial if the defendant understands consequences; precedent allows defendant to choose between speedy trial and delay for counsel	Trial court should have deferred to counsel’s strategic decision; honoring the demand forced unprepared counsel and denied effective assistance	Affirmed — court may accept a defendant’s knowing demand after admonition; no prejudice shown (trial not complex, counsel performed competently)
Whether admission/evidence of certain out-of-court statements (Jones’s statements to police and officers’ testimony about those statements) violated hearsay rules or rendered counsel ineffective for not objecting	Statements were admissible either as identification statements or as non-hearsay background explaining officers’ investigative steps; Jones testified and was cross-examined	Failures to object admitted prior consistent hearsay and prejudicial testimony; trial court improperly overruled hearsay objections	Affirmed — Jones’s identification-statements were admissible; officers’ testimony recounting investigative steps was non-hearsay; counsel’s choices were not deficient or prejudicial

People v. Lewis, 60 Ill.2d 152 (Ill. 1975) (defendant may demand trial against counsel’s advice; denial of continuance does not automatically deny due process if defendant knowingly proceeds)
People v. Williams, 59 Ill.2d 404 (Ill. 1974) (similar holding that defendant may insist on immediate trial despite counsel’s request for continuance)
People v. Webb, 38 Ill. App.3d 629 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976) (trial court may either grant continuance over defendant’s objection or honor defendant’s demand; no abuse where counsel cross-examined effectively)
People v. Kaczmarek, 207 Ill.2d 288 (Ill. 2003) (speedy-trial analysis under Barker; defendant’s conduct about asserting speedy-trial right relevant to inquiry)
People v. Beals, 162 Ill.2d 497 (Ill. 1994) (prior consistent statements rule and distinction for statements of identification)
People v. Pulliam, 176 Ill.2d 261 (Ill. 1997) (officer may testify about information he received to explain investigative steps; such testimony is not hearsay when not offered for truth)
People v. Gacho, 122 Ill.2d 221 (Ill. 1988) (investigative steps testimony admissible though it may imply information received)
People v. Tisdel, 201 Ill.2d 210 (Ill. 2002) (broad view of identification-statement exception encompassing the identification process)