People v. Jenkins
986 N.E.2d 227
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- The People appeal the exclusion of Mallett’s third hospital statement after surgery as hearsay.
- Trial court admitted first statement as dying declaration/excited utterance; admitted second as excited utterance; excluded third as neither dying declaration nor excited utterance, nor forfeiture by wrongdoing.
- State’s offer of proof described three statements to police at different times post-shooting.
- State sought admission of all three under dying-declaration and forfeiture-by-wrongdoing theories; defense argued lack of imminent death and lack of intent to procure unavailability.
- Trial court concluded the third statement failed dying declaration and excited utterance analyses and failed forfeiture-by-wrongdoing analysis; judgment excluded third statement.
- Appellate court affirmed, holding the evidence did not compel a finding that Mallett believed death was imminent or that Jenkins intended to procure unavailability as a witness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether third statement qualifies as dying declaration | People contends imminent-death belief inferred from circumstances. | Jenkins argues no imminent-death belief was shown; not a dying declaration. | No; third statement not admissible as dying declaration. |
| Whether third statement falls under forfeiture by wrongdoing | People asserts intent to procure unavailability implied by shooting and wallet motive. | Jenkins argues no evidence of intent to procure unavailability; wallet detail not proven as stated. | No; forfeiture by wrongdoing not shown. |
| Whether trial court’s factual inferences on imminent death and intent were proper | People maintains circumstantial factors establish imminent-death belief and intent. | Jenkins disputes the inferences; no clear evidence of imminent death or intent. | No; trial court’s inferences not manifestly weighty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. People, 262 Ill. App. 3d 796 (Ill. App. Ct. 3d 1994) (dying declaration circumstantial interpretation)
- People v. Barnes, 117 Ill. App. 3d 965 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983) (imminent-death standard in hospital setting)
- People v. Graham, 392 Ill. App. 3d 1001 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (dying declaration with circumstantial evidence)
- People v. Hatchett, 397 Ill. App. 3d 495 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (circumstantial proof of imminent death requirements)
- People v. Robrock, 2012 IL App (4th) 110590 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 2012) (standard for manifest-weight-of-evidence review of factual inferences)
- People v. Lattimore, 2011 IL App (1st) 093238 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2011) (factual-inference deference in hearsay impermissibilities)
- People v. Colyar, 407 Ill. App. 3d 294 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) (factual determinations reviewed for manifest weight)
- Aguilar v. People, 265 Ill. App. 3d 105 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (distinguishes legal content of hearsay exceptions from fact-finding)