People v. Kitch
239 Ill. 2d 452
| Ill. | 2011Background
- Defendant was charged in Schuyler County with nine counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse based on acts against his stepdaughter and stepson between 2000 and 2003.
- Hearsay statements of the children were admitted under §115-10 with the condition that the children testify at trial.
- Defendant fled and was tried in absentia in 2005; trial included testimony from the children, their mother, sheriff investigators, an obstetric gynecologist, and forensic scientists.
- DNA from a semen stain on a comforter matched defendant; jurors convicted on all counts and he was sentenced to nine consecutive natural life terms plus an extended-term sentence of 14 years.
- Appellate court affirmed the convictions but vacated the consecutive nature of the life terms, ordering them to be served concurrently; the Illinois Supreme Court granted review.
- Key issues include confrontation-clause concerns with direct testimony and hearsay, Crawford v. Washington standards, and statutory costs on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.J.K. and M.J.B.'s testimony suffices for cross-examination under the confrontation clause | K.J.K. and M.J.B. testified in detail enough for cross-exam. | Hearsay statements were insufficiently detailed for cross-exam under confrontation clause. | No error; direct testimony sufficed for cross-exam; forfeiture applies but not plain error. |
| Constitutionality of section 115-10 under Crawford | Section 115-10 complies with Crawford by allowing trial-testifying children to be cross-examined. | Section 115-10 is facially unconstitutional due to Roberts and Crawford implications. | Section 115-10 constitutional; Crawford's framework satisfied when declarant testifies and is cross-examined. |
| Roberts reliability standard and its removal by Crawford | Roberts-based reliability remains valid within §115-10's framework. | Crawford repudiates Roberts; reliability cannot substitute for cross-examination. | Crawford controls; §115-10's reliability safeguards plus cross-examination remain constitutionally valid. |
| Whether §115-10 lacks the blanket prohibition on testimonial statements when declarant is absent | Statutory framework need not be identical to Confrontation Clause; dual analysis applies. | §115-10 improperly allows testimonial statements absent cross-examination protections. | Two-step analysis upheld; statute survives as constitutional in light of Crawford and Green. |
| Whether the appellate court erred by awarding a $50 statutory costs assessment to SAAP | SAAP prosecutes on behalf of the State; costs to defendant are proper. | SAAP, not the county, prosecuted the appeal; the fee should not apply. | Appellate court's $50 assessment upheld; SAAP's involvement aligns with statutory scheme. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (redefines confrontation-clause reliability; cross-examination central)
- Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1980) (reliability standard for hearsay prior to Crawford)
- California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1970) (confrontation clause and testimonial statements)
- People v. Cookson, 215 Ill.2d 194 (Ill. 2005) (limits and application of Crawford in Illinois context)
- In re E.H., 224 Ill.2d 172 (Ill. 2006) (two-step analysis for hearsay admissibility: statutory then constitutional)