People v. Wills, 92 N.E.3d 1057

Background

Defendant Josiaha R. Wills (deaf) was convicted by a jury of three counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child based on his daughter A.W.’s testimony alleging multiple sexual acts between 2013–2014; one conviction was later vacated and dismissed, and defendant received consecutive 12-year sentences on the remaining counts.
A.W., then nine at trial, disclosed the abuse to her school counselor (Albrecht) and in a recorded forensic interview (Shining Star); medical exam showed no physical findings (consistent with many child sexual-abuse cases).
Defense evidence included testimony that A.W. had previously accused another man (Joe Jackson) of a single sexual act, that A.W. was upset after a phone call with her mother about spending a summer visit, and that A.W. communicated imperfectly in ASL.
Defense called Melodee Hoffman to testify she overheard an argument between A.W. and defendant after A.W.’s phone call with her mother; Hoffman was prevented from testifying about statements A.W. made during that argument because the trial court sustained the State’s hearsay objection.
On appeal, defendant argued the exclusion of Hoffman’s testimony was first-prong plain error because it went to A.W.’s motive to fabricate (state of mind) and was therefore admissible; the court agreed the exclusion was erroneous but held the error did not satisfy the first-prong plain-error standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of Hoffman’s testimony about an argument between A.W. and defendant was reversible plain error	Exclusion was proper because Hoffman’s recounting would be hearsay offered to prove the truth that the mother invited A.W. for the summer	Hoffman’s testimony was nonhearsay or admissible to show A.W.’s state of mind (motive to fabricate); exclusion prevented full defense	Court: Exclusion was erroneous (hearsay rule misapplied), but error was not first-prong plain error because evidence was cumulative and would not have tipped the scales
Whether the excluded evidence was admissible as a declaration of A.W.’s then-existing state of mind	State argued the content went to a fact (invitation) and thus to truth, not merely state of mind	Defendant argued A.W.’s belief/excitement about the invitation (her state of mind) was the relevant issue and admissible under the state-of-mind exception	Court: Agreed defendant that A.W.’s state of mind was the relevant inquiry and such statements would likely be admissible under the state-of-mind hearsay exception; exclusion was legal error
Whether lack of formal offer of proof defeats appellate review of excluded testimony	State did not press this defense; argued exclusion harmless due to cumulative proof	Defendant argued specifics of Hoffman’s account uniquely explained motive and falsity	Court: Noted defense failed to make an offer of proof; nonetheless assumed Hoffman’s testimony consistent with record but refused to assume additional details; lack of offer limited claim’s strength
Whether the cumulative record precluded plain-error reversal	State: Error harmless because other evidence already showed A.W. was angry and had motive	Defendant: Details Hoffman could supply were critical to show motive to fabricate	Court: Harmless—other evidence (Welenc, Albrecht, defendant’s own testimony) sufficiently conveyed A.W.’s motive; excluded testimony would have been cumulative and would not have altered outcome

Key Cases Cited

People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (clarifies plain-error two-prong framework)
People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (plain-error doctrine explanation)
People v. Szabo, 113 Ill. 2d 83 (plain-error is narrow exception to forfeiture)
People v. Pastorino, 91 Ill. 2d 178 (forfeiture and review principles)
People v. Peeples, 155 Ill. 2d 422 (offer-of-proof and purpose of such offers)
People v. Davidson, 160 Ill. App. 3d 99 (cumulative evidence nonprejudicial)
People v. Nicholls, 71 Ill. 2d 166 (assessment of appellate costs requested by State)