People v. Smith, 2022 IL 127946

Background

Defendant Carl Smith Jr. was charged with residential burglary after the victim returned to find hydrocodone pills and jewelry missing and a window tampered with.
The apartment building had a surveillance system; the landlord reviewed ~48 hours of footage, selected two short segments (~20 seconds each) showing Smith near the victim’s door and, ~20 minutes later, exiting the victim’s unit carrying a white bag, and recorded those segments by filming the monitor with a cellphone.
The State introduced the two cellphone-recorded clips at trial; the defense objected under the best-evidence rule and Rules 1001–1004, and also argued the clips lacked an adequate Taylor (silent-witness) foundation.
The jury convicted Smith; the appellate court affirmed in a 3-2 split, with disagreement over forfeiture, Rule application, and whether the common-law best-evidence rule survived codification.
The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed whether the cellphone clips were admissible as duplicates under Rule 1003 (and alternatively Rule 1004), whether admitting them was unfair, whether the common-law best-evidence rule still applied, and whether the Taylor-foundational argument was forfeited; it affirmed the conviction.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Smith's Argument	Held
Whether the cellphone clips were admissible as duplicates under Rule 1003	Partial re-recordings of surveillance may be "duplicates" if they accurately reproduce the portions offered; admission is proper unless unfair	Partial clips are not accurate duplicates of the original because they omit relevant context (the ~20-minute gap and other footage), making admission unfair	The clips qualified as duplicates under Rule 1001(4); admission under Rule 1003 was within the trial court’s discretion because fairness concerns were not shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable
Whether admission would be unfair under Rule 1003(2)	Any potential unfairness was mitigated by cross-examination and argument; no non-speculative showing that omitted footage contained exculpatory material	Selective, partial duplication denied the defense needed context; the remaining original footage might have been exculpatory, so admitting duplicates was unfair	The trial court did not abuse its discretion: the clips were accurate as to their content, defense had opportunity to expose gaps at trial, and no evidence of gamesmanship or that omitted footage contained exculpatory material was shown
Whether the common-law best-evidence rule (requiring diligence to obtain originals) still applies	Codification of the Illinois Rules of Evidence abrogated the older common-law best-evidence doctrine; Rule 1004 governs lost/destroyed originals	The older common-law rule (e.g., Osher) still requires a showing of diligence to obtain originals and should bar the clips	The Supreme Court held the codified Illinois Rules of Evidence control and abrogated the common-law best-evidence rule; Osher’s approach does not apply
Whether Smith forfeited his separate Taylor (foundation/silent-witness) challenge on appeal	The State had argued Taylor in the appellate court; defendant did not press a Taylor-based claim in his opening brief, so the issue was not properly preserved for review	Smith argued the Taylor foundation claim was preserved and should be considered/remanded	The Court declined to remand: Smith did not pursue the Taylor issue in the appellate brief, and resolution of Taylor would not alter the Court’s Rule 1003 analysis

Key Cases Cited

People v. Taylor, 2011 IL 110067 (Ill. 2011) (framework for foundation of surveillance/video evidence under the "silent witness" theory)
Electric Supply Corp. v. Osher, 105 Ill. App. 3d 46 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982) (describing the common-law best-evidence rule and diligence requirement)
United States v. Sinclair, 74 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 1996) (upholding admission of partial copies as duplicates when portions shown were accurate and relevant)
United States v. Condry, 574 F. Supp. 979 (N.D. Okla. 2021) (district court treated cellphone re-recordings as duplicates where full videos were reproduced)
United States v. Chavez, 976 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2020) (discussion of best-evidence concepts post-adoption of rules)