Background

• Salgado was convicted of two counts of Class 4 felony domestic battery based on prior domestic battery conviction.
• The indictment had two theories: bodily harm and insulting/provoking; the offense proceeded without a jury.
• During Brianna Salgado’s testimony, the court allowed Brianna to testify in chambers with Salgado present but excluded his view of the testimony.
• Brianna, nine years old, testified regarding events in the early morning; her testimony described the mother’s arm injury and related conduct.
• The State rested after testimony from a responding officer and Ortiz; Salgado was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.
• On appeal, Salgado argued the trial violated his confrontation rights by excluding him from Brianna’s testimony; the issue was treated as plain error and convictions were reversed and remanded.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• People v. Stroud, 208 Ill.2d 398 (Ill. 2004) (waiver standards for in-court presence; video link concerns)
• People v. Bean, 137 Ill.2d 65 (Ill. 1990) (presence at trial as means to protect substantial rights; confrontation right analysis)
• Lofton v. Illinois, 194 Ill.2d 40 (Ill. 2000) (closed courtroom innovation violated confrontation; need knowing waiver for absent testimony)
• Stroud (same as above), 208 Ill.2d 398 (Ill. 2004) (reiterates need for clear waiver when defendant absent during testimony)
• People v. Campbell, 208 Ill.2d 203 (Ill. 2003) (limited scope of waiver for stipulated testimony; live testimony requires broader protection)
• People v. Guttendorf, 309 Ill.App.3d 1044 (Ill. App. 2000) (implications of nonstandard trial settings on confrontation rights)
• People v. Caruth, 322 Ill.App.3d 226 (Ill. App. 2001) (absence from courtroom impacting ultimate guilt determination)