People v. Taylor
2011 IL 110067
| Ill. | 2011Background
- The People charged Taylor after surveilled office thefts at Deerfield High School where money disappeared from Marsh's desk pouch.
- Detective Annen installed a motion-activated wireless camera and DVR in Marsh’s office; footage showed Taylor near the desk on December 10.
- The DVR recorded two short segments with a 30-second gap; defense argued the gap and equipment reliability issues affected admissibility.
- Taylor admitted some thefts during a later interview, and Marsh testified identifying Taylor in the video.
- At trial, the court admitted the VHS copy of the DVR footage under the silent witness theory, despite defense objections about foundation and preservation.
- Appellate court reversed, prompting Illinois Supreme Court review on foundational reliability and admissibility of the tape.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under silent witness theory | People argues the process was reliable and foundation sufficient. | Taylor contends gaps and device issues undermine reliability and authenticity. | VHS tape admitted; foundation adequate; no abuse of discretion. |
| Standard of review for admissibility of videotape | People supports abuse-of-discretion review. | Taylor advocates de novo review for legal admissibility. | Review under abuse of discretion; not de novo. |
| Forfeiture and plain-error review of objections | People argues objections preserved; no forfeiture on core grounds. | Taylor asserts several grounds were not preserved. | Some grounds forfeited; plain-error review applied to others; no reversible error. |
| Foundation factors for surveillance-recording admissibility | People contends the totality shows reliability of the process. | Taylor argues missing segments and copying process undermine reliability. | Factors nonexclusive; totality supports admissibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cisarik v. Palos Community Hospital, 144 Ill. 2d 339 (1991) (videotapes admissible on same basis as photographs; proper authentication)
- People v. Smith, 152 Ill. 2d 229 (1992) (trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings; defer to ruling absent legal error)
- People ex rel. Sherman v. Cryns, 203 Ill. 2d 264 (2003) (videotapes admissible with proper authentication; abuse of discretion standard)
- Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007) (original vs. duplicate definitions; admissibility of recordings)
- Garvey v. Chicago Rys. Co., 339 Ill. 276 (1930) (chain of custody principles; authenticity considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Leneski, 846 N.E.2d 1195 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006) (surveillance recordings; original vs. copy admissibility)
- Willett v. Russell M. Stookey, P.C., 568 S.E.2d 520 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (recording sufficiency; recognizability despite gaps)
- United States v. Reed, 887 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir. 1989) (system reliability and monitoring; independent accuracy evidence)
- United States v. Harris, 55 M.J. 433 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (requirements for recording evidence; operator competency; preservation)