People v. Hampton
941 N.E.2d 228
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- Defendant Willie Hampton was convicted in a 2002 bench trial of eight counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault with a firearm and two counts of home invasion with a firearm, totaling 84 years.
- The appellate court remanded for a forfeiture-by-wrongdoing hearing and vacated several convictions and enhancements, including the 15-year firearm enhancements, on constitutional grounds.
- On remand, the trial court found Hampton forfeited his Confrontation Clause rights due to his mother Francine Hampton and Cory Durr’s unavailability, based on a letter and recorded communications.
- Evidence at remand included a handwritten letter from Hampton to Durr and multiple phone calls and audio recordings between Francine Hampton and Durr, plus a transcript from related proceedings showing coaching and instructions to testify.
- The trial court reinstated Hampton’s convictions and 84-year sentence after concluding forfeiture by wrongdoing, and on direct appeal Hampton challenged the forfeiture ruling along with the alleged sentencing and double-counting errors.
- The Illinois Supreme Court later remanded to address forfeiture by wrongdoing; on remand the appellate court ultimately affirmed forfeiture and vacated four counts and one home invasion conviction, remanding for resentencing and correcting the mittimus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the State prove forfeiture by wrongdoing to bar Confrontation Clause claims? | Hampton | Hampton contends no wrongful act occurred. | Yes; the State proved by a preponderance that Hampton intended to render Durr unavailable. |
| Are the 15-year firearm enhancements unconstitutional under Hauschild? | Hampton | Hampton argues enhancements are disproportionate. | Yes; the 15-year adds are unconstitutional and must be vacated (remanded for resentencing). |
| Should multiple convictions be vacated where based on a single illegal entry? | Hampton | Hampton argues multiple counts invalid. | Yes; one home invasion conviction must be vacated. |
| Should four ACSSA convictions be vacated because they rest on the same four acts of penetration? | Hampton | Hampton argues redundancy. | Yes; four ACSSA convictions must be vacated; remaining four to be resentenced. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (establishes confrontation-right rule for testimonial statements)
- Stechly v. State, 225 Ill.2d 246 (2007) (adopts forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine in Illinois)
- People v. Spicer, 379 Ill.App.3d 441 (2007) (deference to trial court on forfeiture rulings; proper standard of review)
- People v. Hauschild, 226 Ill.2d 63 (2007) (proportional penalties clause; governs resentencing when firearm add-ons are unconstitutional)