People v. Hood, 19 N.E.3d 1244

In 2007 defendant Terry Hood was charged with, among other counts, aggravated battery of 69-year-old Robert Bishop, who sustained serious injuries and later became unavailable to testify at trial.
The State obtained a videotaped evidentiary deposition of Bishop under Ill. S. Ct. R. 414; defense counsel attended and cross-examined, but Hood himself was not present during the deposition.
No written waiver of Hood’s presence under Rule 414(e) appears in the record, and the deposition video contains no on-the-record waiver by Hood.
Six months after the deposition, at a status hearing, the prosecutor stated defense counsel had waived Hood’s presence; counsel confirmed she had waived his appearance, but there is no indication Hood personally or knowingly waived his confrontation right.
The trial court later found Bishop unavailable and admitted the videotaped deposition under an 804(b) hearsay exception; the jury convicted Hood of aggravated battery of a senior citizen and he was sentenced to 22 years.
The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding Hood showed second-prong plain error because there was no record the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his confrontation right and Rule 414’s written-waiver requirement was not satisfied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of victim's videotaped Rule 414 deposition, taken without the defendant present, violated defendant's confrontation right	State: Defense counsel waived defendant’s presence; deposition included cross-examination so confrontation satisfied	Hood: No record that he personally, knowingly, and voluntarily waived his right to confront; absence denied meaningful confrontation	Reversed: Error occurred; no valid waiver shown and Rule 414 written-waiver requirement unmet; second-prong plain error applies
Whether failure to have a written waiver under Ill. S. Ct. R. 414(e) invalidates admission of deposition	State: Counsel’s on-record statement later suffices; defendant forfeited objection	Hood: No written waiver as Rule 414(e) requires; omission fatal	Held: Rule 414(e) requires written waiver; none exists, so waiver invalid
Whether the record supports plain-error review despite procedural forfeiture	State: Issue forfeited and plain error not shown	Hood: Constitutional confrontation right is substantial, so second-prong plain error review is warranted	Held: Confrontation is a fundamental/substantial right; second-prong plain error applies and prejudice is presumed
Whether reversal would risk double jeopardy	State: Sufficient evidence at trial supports conviction	Hood: N/A	Held: Record shows sufficient evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, so retrial does not violate double jeopardy

People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (2005) (plain-error doctrine framework)
People v. Campbell, 208 Ill. 2d 203 (2003) (presumption against waiver of constitutional rights; confrontation as fundamental right)
People v. Stroud, 208 Ill. 2d 398 (2004) (waiver standards for constitutional rights)
People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478 (2009) (defendant bears burden to prove plain error)
People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173 (2009) (limitations on reversal for violation of court rules; distinguishing fundamental rights)
People v. Spain, 285 Ill. App. 3d 228 (1996) (Rule 414 written-waiver requirement)
People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (2010) (description of structural/serious errors and plain-error criteria)
Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1 (1966) (waiver requires intentional relinquishment of known right)