People v. Hood, 2016 IL 118581

Background

In 2007 Robert Bishop Jr., a 69‑year‑old, was found beaten and bound; Terry Hood was indicted for attempted murder and related offenses.
The State moved under Ill. S. Ct. Rule 414 to take an evidence deposition of Bishop because his head injuries suggested a substantial possibility he would be unavailable at trial; the State stated defendant would have an opportunity to confront and cross‑examine.
The circuit court ordered the deposition for March 31, 2008; Hood did not attend though two assistant public defenders cross‑examined Bishop on video at the nursing home.
Bishop later suffered severe dementia and was found by the trial court to be unavailable to testify at trial; the court admitted the video deposition under Illinois Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1).
Hood was convicted of aggravated battery of a senior citizen; on appeal he argued (for the first time) the admission of the deposition violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation right because he was not present when it was taken; the appellate court found plain error and reversed.
The Illinois Supreme Court granted leave, reviewed Crawford and related precedent, and reversed the appellate court, affirming the trial court’s admission of the deposition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Hood)	Held
Whether admitting Bishop’s video deposition violated the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause	Deposition was testimonial but admissible because declarant was unavailable and defendant had a prior opportunity to cross‑examine (via counsel at the deposition).	Admission violated Confrontation Clause because Hood was not physically present at the deposition and thus lacked the opportunity to confront the witness.	Held: No Sixth Amendment violation — deposition was testimonial but admissible: declarant unavailable and Hood had a prior opportunity for cross‑examination.
Whether plain‑error review applies to Hood’s forfeited Sixth Amendment claim	Error is reviewed for plain error but there was no constitutional error to review.	Admission was plain error because confrontation right was violated and Hood never expressly waived presence.	Held: No plain error — because no Confrontation Clause error occurred under Crawford.
Whether Hood’s absence violated due process right to be present	State: No, because the absence did not deprive Hood of any substantial right or result in unfairness.	Hood: Due process violated because absence from deposition deprived him of confrontation and a meaningful proceeding.	Held: No due process violation — underlying confrontation right was not violated, so no plain error on due process grounds.
Whether Rule 414(e) required a written waiver of defendant’s right to attend the deposition	State: Written waiver is not a constitutional prerequisite; actual notice and opportunity suffice for Crawford purposes.	Hood: Trial court erred by admitting deposition without written waiver as required by Rule 414(e).	Held: Rule 414(e) written waiver is nonconstitutional; absence of a written waiver did not produce plain error where the record showed Hood knew of and waived attendance.

Key Cases Cited

Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (Sixth Amendment confrontation applied to the states)
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (Confrontation Clause protects face‑to‑face and cross‑examination rights)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Testimonial statements admissible only if witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross‑examination)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (Reaffirming Crawford rule for testimonial out‑of‑court statements)
Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (Historical discussion of face‑to‑face and cross‑examination rights)
People v. Melchor, 226 Ill. 2d 24 (Procedure for evaluating admissibility of out‑of‑court statements)
People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539 (Plain‑error doctrine requires first finding of error)
People v. Wagener, 196 Ill. 2d 269 (State courts bound by U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of the Federal Constitution)