People v. Perkins, 163 N.E.3d 148

Background

Defendant Alvin Perkins was charged with first-degree murder after his ex-girlfriend, Teresa Iacovetti, was shot on June 26, 2007 and died days later; he was convicted and sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 70 years.
Within hours of the shooting Teresa made three out-of-court identifications of Perkins to police (≈1:46 a.m.; ≈2:00 a.m.; later that day), and all three statements were admitted at trial.
Trial court admitted the first two statements as excited utterances (and also referenced dying-declaration grounds) and admitted the later, more detailed statement under a forfeiture-by-wrongdoing theory.
On direct appeal this court remanded for a preponderance-of-the-evidence hearing on whether Perkins killed Teresa with the intent to make her unavailable as a witness (i.e., the intent element required by Giles and Illinois Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5)).
After a remand hearing the trial court found by a preponderance that Perkins intended to prevent Teresa from testifying (based on prior threats, order-of-protection context, prior criminal-damage incident and statements), and the appellate court affirmed the conviction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Perkins)	Held
1) Denial of request to self-represent	Court properly refused because defendant’s request was not unequivocal and there were fitness/mental-capacity concerns; Rule 401 admonitions were not required while represented	Denial violated Faretta; he knowingly invoked right to proceed pro se	Denial affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; defendant’s request was not a knowing, intelligent, unequivocal waiver given mental-health issues and procedural context
2) Admissibility of Teresa’s statements under hearsay exceptions (dying declaration/excited utterance)	First two statements qualify as excited utterances (and trial court also referenced dying-declaration theory)	Statements were not spontaneous and dying-declaration requirements were not met	Excited-utterance rulings for first two statements upheld; dying-declaration admission was erroneous because no proof Teresa believed death was imminent
3) Confrontation Clause (testimonial nature)	Statements were nontestimonial or, if testimonial, forfeiture-by-wrongdoing or dying-declaration exceptions apply	Statements were testimonial and defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine — confrontation violation	Statements were testimonial; dying-declaration exception did not apply; but forfeiture-by-wrongdoing extinguished Crawford-based confrontation objection and admission was permissible
4) Forfeiture-by-wrongdoing intent requirement	The State proved by preponderance that Perkins killed Teresa to prevent her testifying (context: prior threats, order-of-protection, criminal-damage incident, "I know what I’m going to have to do when I get out")	Murder cannot have been intended to prevent testimony at the murder trial (no such trial existed); intent to prevent testimony of any anticipated proceeding is required and not shown	Court held intent to procure unavailability for testimony need not be limited to the particular prosecution later filed; remand finding that State proved intent by preponderance stands and supports admission under forfeiture-by-wrongdoing

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay unless declarant unavailable and prior cross-examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishes testimonial v. nontestimonial statements; ongoing emergency test)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing requires intent to procure witness’s absence)
Hanson, People v., 238 Ill. 2d 74 (Ill. Supreme Court: federal rule/coextensive common-law forfeiture doctrine)
Sutton, People v., 233 Ill. 2d 89 (Victim statements in ambulance were testimonial under Davis/Crawford analysis)
Stechly, People v., 225 Ill. 2d 246 (discussion of forfeiture-by-wrongdoing as hearsay exception and confrontation extinguishment)