People v. Ochoa, 2017 IL App (1st) 140204

Background

In 2002 15-year-old Marilu Socha was shot and killed; a distinctive green car with plastic over a window was linked to the scene and three codefendants (Bentazos, Simon, Torres) were arrested. Defendant Daniel Ochoa, a Spanish-only speaker arrested later, gave a Spanish interview translated by Detective Lopez and signed an English handwritten statement prepared by an ASA and translated orally by Lopez.
Defendant was convicted at a 2005 trial; this court reversed and remanded based on improper admission of detectives’ testimony implying codefendants identified defendant.
On retrial in 2013 the prosecution again called detectives who testified about investigative steps and identifying information (nicknames, physical description, address) that the jury could infer derived from codefendant interviews; no codefendants testified.
The trial court sustained some objections and told the jury to disregard certain answers but did not give a limiting instruction restricting investigative-background testimony to non-hearsay purposes.
The jury convicted Ochoa of first-degree murder and aggravated discharge of a firearm; the court imposed consecutive sentences including a 35-year firearm enhancement.
The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the detectives’ testimony impermissibly admitted the substance of nontestifying codefendants’ statements (Bruton-type/hearsay error) and that the error was not harmless because the primary non-hearsay link to defendant was his translated confession.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether detectives’ testimony revealing that police sought suspects by nicknames/physical descriptors (after arrests of codefendants) was admissible as investigatory background or was inadmissible hearsay/Bruton-type evidence	Testimony explained the course of the investigation and was not offered for truth; any brief statements cured by court admonitions	Testimony implied codefendants implicated Ochoa and placed hearsay into evidence in violation of confrontation/hearsay rules	Reversed: detectives’ testimony went beyond permissible investigatory background, implied codefendant identifications, was inadmissible hearsay, and the error was not harmless
Whether any curative instructions (disregard) cured the error	The court’s sustain-and-disregard rulings cured any harm	Disregard rulings and lack of limiting instruction were insufficient; the jury could infer substance	Held against State: no adequate limiting instruction and repeated nonstricken testimony made error prejudicial
Whether defendant’s English-written statement (taken through detective translator) was reliable and sufficient to support conviction absent the hearsay	Statement corroborated other evidence and supported conviction	Statement is unreliable because defendant speaks only Spanish, translation was by investigating detective (not certified), and confession should not be sole link	Court did not decide claim on separate merits but found confession was the primary remaining link once hearsay is excluded, making error nonharmless and requiring retrial

Key Cases Cited

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (introducing rule barring admission of nontestifying codefendant statements that incriminate defendant)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial hearsay unless declarant unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine)
People v. Simms, 143 Ill. 2d 154 (1991) (police may recount investigative steps but must not place substance of out-of-court statements into evidence)
People v. Gacho, 122 Ill. 2d 221 (1987) (police may testify that they acted after speaking to a witness but may not relate contents of conversation)
People v. Jones, 153 Ill. 2d 155 (1992) (limitations on using investigative-background testimony to convey out-of-court statements)
People v. Jura, 352 Ill. App. 3d 1080 (2004) (inadmissible hearsay requires reversal unless harmless; investigatory-exception limits explained)
People v. Trotter, 254 Ill. App. 3d 514 (1993) (distinguishing testimony that an officer spoke with a witness from testimony about the contents of that conversation)
People v. Hunley, 313 Ill. App. 3d 16 (2000) (officer may describe investigative steps but not unnecessary substantive out-of-court statements)