People v. Peterson
968 N.E.2d 204
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Peterson was charged with two counts of first-degree murder in Kathleen Savio’s death.
- Pretrial rulings challenged the admissibility of hearsay statements from Kathleen and Stacy under forfeiture by wrongdoing and 115-10.6.
- The circuit court admitted some statements under 115-10.6 and excluded others; later rulings focused on whether common law forfeiture or the statutory rule controlled.
- Illinois Supreme Court supervisory action directed the appellate court to address the merits of the State’s appeal.
- The appellate court held the statute did not supplant the common law; eight statements were admissible under 804(b)(5).
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the admissibility ruling and the court’s interpretation of the interplay between the statute and common law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 115-10.6 supplants forfeiture by wrongdoing | State argues statute controls and supplants common law. | Peterson argues statute preempts common law only if valid. | Statute does not supplant the common law; common law applies. |
| Whether eight statements are admissible under 804(b)(5) despite reliability requirement | Statute’s reliability standard governs admission of these statements. | Common law allows admission without trustworthiness under forfeiture. | Eight statements admissible under 804(b)(5). |
| Whether the statute and common law can be reconciled without invalidating the common law rule | Statute provides reliability, but common law remains applicable. | Courts should rely on statute where conflict exists. | Conflict resolved in favor of supreme court authority; common law remains effective where not trumped. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1878) (long-standing forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine)
- People v. Stechly, 225 Ill. 2d 246 (Ill. 2007) (adopts common-law forfeiture coextensive with 804(b)(6))
- People v. Hanson, 238 Ill. 2d 74 (Ill. 2010) (forfeiture rule admissibility without reliability requirement)
- People v. Bond, 405 Ill. App. 3d 499 (Ill. App. 2010) (separation of powers; supreme court authority over evidence rules)
- People v. Lyles, 217 Ill. 2d 210 (Ill. 2005) (timeliness and appellate jurisdiction principles)
- People v. Moore, 133 Ill. 2d 331 (Ill. 1990) (supervisory authority and reinstatement of appeals)
- People v. Williams, 138 Ill. 2d 377 (Ill. 1990) (rules on jurisdiction and timing of appeals)
- People v. Taylor, 50 Ill. 2d 136 (Ill. 1971) (Taylor rule governing timely appeals)