People v. Leannah
2022 IL App (2d) 200672
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background:
- Jarid P. Leannah was charged with two counts of domestic battery arising from a January 20, 2018 altercation with his then‑girlfriend, Jessica Duquette (one count for insulting/provoking contact; one for causing bodily harm).
- Duquette made (and preserved) an audio recording of part of the altercation on her phone without Leannah’s consent; the recording captured heated exchanges, Duquette’s statements that Leannah had slapped her and squeezed her arm in a car window, and later statements after others arrived that corroborated physical contact.
- Leannah’s brother and brother‑in‑law testified for the defense that they did not see Leannah strike or grab Duquette and described Duquette as the aggressor; both witnesses were intoxicated and related/connected to Leannah.
- The trial court admitted the recording over defense objection under the eavesdropping statute’s “fear‑of‑crime” exemption (720 ILCS 5/14‑3(i)), found Leannah guilty on both counts after a bench trial, and sentenced him to 18 months’ probation and 90 days in jail (stay conditioned on compliance).
- On appeal the court vacated the lesser insulting/provoking contact conviction under the one‑act, one‑crime rule, and addressed Leannah’s challenge to the recording’s admission, ultimately affirming because any error in admitting the recording was harmless given the other evidence (Duquette’s testimony, physical injuries, and witness statements).
Issues:
| Issue | People’s Argument | Leannah’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| One‑act, one‑crime (two domestic battery convictions from same act) | Prosecution prosecuted alternate theories; impose sentence on greater offense | Both convictions can stand | Vacated the lesser insulting/provoking contact conviction; left the bodily‑harm conviction (affirmed in part) |
| Admissibility of Duquette’s surreptitious recording under 14‑3(i) (“fear‑of‑crime”) | Recording admissible because Duquette reasonably suspected imminent or ongoing criminal conduct (disorderly/intoxicated conduct) and recording could yield evidence; any error harmless | Recording violated eavesdropping statute because Duquette recorded to show behavior, not because she had reasonable suspicion a crime was being committed or would be | Court assumed, without deciding, any admission error was harmless beyond a reasonable probability the verdict would differ; affirmed conviction on harmless‑error grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Garcia, 179 Ill. 2d 55 (Ill. 1997) (one‑act, one‑crime principle; vacate lesser concurrent conviction)
- People v. Young, 362 Ill. App. 3d 843 (Ill. App. 2005) (distinguishing insulting/provoking battery as lesser than bodily‑harm battery)
- People v. Clark, 2014 IL 115776 (Ill. 2014) (invalidating prior two‑party consent eavesdropping rule as overbroad)
- People v. Melongo, 2014 IL 114852 (Ill. 2014) (same legislative context for eavesdropping amendment)
- Carroll v. Lynch, 698 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. 2012) (describing "fear‑of‑crime" exemption requiring subjective and objective reasonable suspicion)
- People v. Nestrock, 316 Ill. App. 3d 1 (Ill. App. 2000) (recording inadmissible where recorder had no suspicion of impending crime)
- People v. Williams, 188 Ill. 2d 365 (Ill. 1999) (motion in limine is addressed to trial court’s discretion regarding admission/exclusion of evidence)