People v. Peterson
2011 IL App (3d) 100513
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Drew Peterson was charged with two counts of first degree murder in connection with Kathleen Savio’s death; the pathologist initially classified it as drowning with an accidental determination by a coroner’s jury.
- Prior divorce proceedings between Kathleen Savio and Peterson led to a bifurcated judgment; hearings on property distribution were scheduled for April 2004.
- Stacy Peterson, Peterson’s fourth wife, disappeared in 2007; subsequent autopsies recharacterized Kathleen’s death as homicide.
- During pretrial, the State sought to admit multiple hearsay statements under 115-10.6 and the common-law forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine; the circuit court admitted some statements under 115-10.6 and excluded others.
- The circuit court also denied the State’s motion to admit other-crimes evidence and limited an expert (Diane Panos) from testifying about the divorce judge’s likely ruling.
- The State filed three interlocutory appeals consolidated for briefing; one appeal sought review of the hearsay ruling, another of the other-crimes ruling, and the third of the Panos ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Taylor Rule bars the appeal on hearsay rulings | Peterson argues timely appeal under Rule 604(a)(1); Taylor rule timing excused by material change. | Peterson contends untimely appeal; Hanson did not change law; rule precludes review. | No jurisdiction; appeal dismissed |
| Admissibility of eight hearsay statements under forfeiture by wrongdoing | State contends common-law doctrine allows admission despite reliability concerns. | Peterson argues Taylor rule bars review of the exclusion; no timely avenue. | Lacked jurisdiction; eight statements affirmed as excluded; appeal dismissed |
| Admissibility of other-crimes evidence under 115-7.4 and common law | Evidence shows motive/intent and propensity to commit domestic violence; probative value outweighs prejudice. | Remoteness and similarity render evidence unduly prejudicial and inappropriate. | Circuit court did not abuse discretion; evidence excluded; upheld |
| Admissibility of Panos’s expert testimony on divorce outcome and attorney expectations | Panos’s opinions would aid jurors in understanding damages and context. | Testimony about legal outcomes is improper as legal conclusions and speculation. | Circuit court did not abuse discretion; Panos excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hanson, 238 Ill. 2d 74 (2010) (forfeiture by wrongdoing is an exception to hearsay; not required to show reliability)
- People v. Stechly, 225 Ill. 2d 246 (2007) (common-law forfeiture doctrine coextensive with 804(b)(6))
- People v. Holmes, 235 Ill. 2d 59 (2009) (Taylor rule jurisdictional deadline for interlocutory appeals)
- People v. Taylor, 50 Ill.2d 136 (1971) (Taylor rule foundational for jurisdiction in interlocutory appeals)
- People v. Williams, 138 Ill.2d 377 (1990) (Taylor rule boundary and law-of-the-case considerations)
- People v. Urdiales, 225 Ill.2d 354 (2007) (procedural requirements for interlocutory appeals)
- People v. Baltimore, 381 Ill. App. 3d 115 (2008) (methods of presenting evidence and evidentiary rulings on appeal)
- Relph v. Bd. of Ed. of DePue Unit Sch. Dist. No. 103, 84 Ill.2d 436 (1981) (law-of-the-case and reconsideration concepts in Illinois appellate practice)