People v. Matthews
93 N.E.3d 597
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- In June 2014 police planned a controlled buy using a confidential source; officer Zajicek searched the source, placed prerecorded funds, and installed covert video in the source’s vehicle.
- At the Mobil gas station the source sat in the front and an individual entered the rear passenger seat; an off-frame exchange occurred and the source later handed Zajicek a Baggie of crack cocaine.
- Zajicek identified the seller as Brandon Matthews after reviewing the hidden-camera footage; forensic testing showed the recovered substance was 4.9 grams of cocaine.
- A jury convicted Matthews of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance; the trial court sentenced him to 9½ years and imposed various fines/fees.
- On appeal Matthews challenged: (1) admission of certain hearsay testimony by Zajicek, (2) denial of defense questioning about the confidential source’s identity, (3) the court’s having the jury view surveillance video in the courtroom during deliberations, and (4) several fines imposed by the circuit clerk.
- The appellate court affirmed the conviction in part, rejected plain-error relief on the evidentiary and jury-deliberation claims, and vacated several clerical fines imposed by the circuit clerk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of officer testimony recounting what confidential source said about meeting place | Testimony explained investigative steps and was not offered for truth but to show why officers went to the gas station | Testimony was hearsay and trial court should have held a Cameron hearing before admitting it | Court: statements explaining why officers went to location admissible; no error as to that testimony |
| Admission of officer testimony that source said the seller had only $400 of cocaine (amount) | State argued testimony aided explanation of events | Defendant: statement was hearsay and prejudicial; no Cameron hearing held | Court: this portion was hearsay and erroneous, but evidence was not closely balanced so no plain-error reversal |
| Disclosure of confidential source identity | State: nondisclosure appropriate under Rule 412(j)(ii) and disclosure not necessary | Matthews: defense needs identity to confront accuser and prepare defense; asked midtrial | Court: defendant failed to show necessity; trial court did not err in denying identity disclosure |
| Jury viewing video in courtroom during deliberations | State: accommodating jury request and no communication occurred; trial court has discretion | Defendant: courtroom viewing in presence of parties and court intruded on secret deliberations, requiring reversal | Court: even if error, it did not rise to structural/plain-error requiring reversal; issue forfeited |
| Fines imposed by circuit clerk | State concedes certain fines imposed by clerk are void | Defendant: clerical imposition of judicial fines void | Court: vacated specified fines imposed by circuit clerk as void |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Belknap, 23 N.E.3d 325 (Ill. 2014) (plain-error framework for unpreserved errors)
- People v. Cameron, 546 N.E.2d 259 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (procedure for admitting third-party out-of-court statements to explain police conduct and recommending a hearing)
- People v. Simms, 572 N.E.2d 947 (Ill. 1991) (officer may testify about conversations to explain investigative steps, not for truth)
- People v. Thompson, 939 N.E.2d 403 (Ill. 2010) (structural error and second-prong plain-error analysis)
- People v. Larue, 10 N.E.3d 959 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) (circuit clerk lacks authority to impose judicial fines; such fines are void)