2021 IL App (4th) 180505
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Defendant Johnathan E. Rajner was charged with predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and aggravated criminal sexual abuse based on alleged sexual conduct with two 10‑year‑old girls (K.R. and Z.P.).
- The State and K.R.’s guardian moved under 725 ILCS 5/106B‑5 to have K.R. testify outside the courtroom via closed‑circuit television (CCTV); the trial court granted the motion after a pretrial hearing.
- The court heard testimony from K.R.’s therapist (Kara Moon): MSW, licensed social worker, ~20 individual sessions with K.R.; K.R. diagnosed with adjustment disorder and repeatedly avoided discussing trauma in therapy.
- The therapist opined, based on her work with K.R., that testifying in the defendant’s presence would cause severe emotional distress such that K.R. could not reasonably communicate, and that CCTV would make communication more likely.
- At trial K.R. testified via CCTV; Z.P. testified in court; the jury convicted Rajner on both counts and he was sentenced to consecutive terms (15 and 7 years).
- On appeal Rajner argued the court violated his confrontation right because the evidence was insufficient to support the statutory finding allowing CCTV; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allowing K.R. to testify via CCTV under 106B‑5 violated confrontation where the court allegedly lacked sufficient evidence that K.R. would suffer serious emotional distress preventing reasonable communication | Therapist’s testimony about K.R.’s diagnosis, behaviors in ~20 sessions, and opinion that in‑court testimony would overwhelm her sufficed to support the statutory finding | Therapist was not a doctor/psychologist or a prior expert witness; opinion was speculative/generalized; K.R. had discussed abuse with a forensic interviewer, showing she could testify | Court: the therapist’s testimony, specific to K.R., was sufficient to support the statutory finding; no confrontation violation; affirmed |
| Whether Rajner forfeited the challenge by not raising sufficiency in his posttrial motion | State: the claim was forfeited for appellate review | Rajner: his posttrial motion preserved or, alternatively, plain error applies | Court acknowledged forfeiture but exercised discretion to review the merits and decided the issue on its substance |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dean, 175 Ill. 2d 244 (Ill. 1997) (upheld constitutionality of section 106B‑5 permitting child testimony by CCTV)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1990) (held limited use of one‑way closed‑circuit testimony for child victims can satisfy Confrontation Clause)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (established that testimonial hearsay generally cannot be admitted absent confrontation, calling aspects of Craig into tension)