People v. Salgado
2012 IL App (2d) 100945
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Saladino? No: Jose L. Salgado was indicted on two counts of Class 4 felony domestic battery scenarios based on bodily harm and insulting/provoking theories, enhanced by a prior domestic battery conviction.
- Trial proceeded without opening statements; the State sought to take Brianna Salgado’s testimony in chambers, outside defendant’s presence.
- Defendant remained in the courtroom during Brianna’s in-chambers testimony; his handcuffs were discussed and defense counsel briefly consulted.
- Brianna Salgado, nine years old, testified in chambers about the incident involving her mother Iliana Ortiz and defendant.
- Ortiz testified in court after Brianna; an officer also testified; the State rested and the defense rested; the court convicted Salgado on both counts and sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal, Salgado challenged the exclusion from Brianna’s testimony as a violation of his confrontation right; the issue was treated as plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the confrontation right violated by excluding defendant from Brianna’s testimony? | State contends waiver occurred when defense counsel agreed to proceed in chambers with defendant present. | Salgado did not knowingly and voluntarily waive the right to be present; waiver record is inadequate. | Yes; the waiver was improper and the exclusion violated confrontation. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lofton, 194 Ill. 2d 40 (2000) (confrontation rights violated by nonstandard testimony arrangement; need for knowing waiver)
- People v. Stroud, 208 Ill. 2d 398 (2004) (waiver of presence for video-linked or limited appearances requires clear advisement)
- People v. Bean, 137 Ill. 2d 65 (1990) (presence and confrontation rights fundamental; absence implicates substantial rights)
- People v. Campbell, 208 Ill. 2d 203 (2003) (stipulated testimony limits confrontation rights; different from live testimony)
- People v. Caruth, 322 Ill. App. 3d 226 (2001) (absence during proceedings implicating guilt can be plain error)
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (defendant may forfeit presence through disruptive conduct; presumption against loss of rights)