Docket No . 108769.



### IN THE SUPRE ME COURT OF THE STAT E OF ILLIN OIS

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINO IS, App ellee, v.

RICH AR D D. K ITCH, A ppel l an t.
Opinion filed January 21, 2011.

JUSTICE FRE EMAN deliver ed t he judg ment o f the cou rt, w i th op inion. Chi ef Justic e K

i l bri de an d Jus tic es Th omas, Ga rm an , Ka rmeier, Bur ke, and T heis co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion.

OPINI ON

Fol l owi ng a j ury tria l , def endan t Ri chard Ki tchwa s c onv

i cte d of nineco unt s o f pre dat or y criminal sexual ass ault of a child and o ne co unt of a ggr avat ed c riminal sexu al abus e. The

ci rcu i t cou rt of Schuy le rCounty sen

tenced him to nine co nsec ut ivena tura l l i f e p ri son t er ms f or preda tory cr iminal s ex ua l as sa ult of a child, a nd a c onc ur re nt 14-year ext ende d t er m for a ggr avat ed c riminal sexual abu se. The appel l ate co ur t or der ed t he nat ur al lif e pr ison t er ms to be se rve d
co nc ur r en t ly

rathe r than cons ecuti

ve l y , and a ff

irm ed i n al l other
re spects. 392 Ill . App. 3d 108. For the reasons set forth bel ow, we af f i rm the j udgm

en t of the appe l l ate court.1 Prio r totri al, t

he State di sm iss ed co un t VIII

. -2- I. BACKG

ROUND In Feb ruary 2005, the Stat e c ha r ge d d efe nd an t wit h mu lt iple
co un ts o f se xu al a ss au lt an d a bu se alle ge dly p er pe t r at ed ag ain st his stepda ugh ter, K.J .K., who was b orn J an uary 8, 199 1, and his st eps on, M.J.B ., who was born Ma y 5, 1994. Specifi

cally, the Stat e charged defend ant with predatory cri mi nal sexual assault of a chi

ld (720 ILCS 5/12–14.1(a)(1) (Wes t 200 4) ), alleging that, between March 200 0 and March 2003, d ef endan t (a) pla c ed his p enis in the mou t h of K. J.K. (c oun ts I an d I I);(b ) al l owe d h

i s p en i s to have cont act with K.J.K.’s vagi nal area (c oun t III ); (c ) p l ac ed

h i s p en i s i n K .J .K .’ s v

ag i n a ( cou n ts IV, V, an

d VI); and (d) pl

ace d hi s penis i n the m outh of M.J .B

. (c oun ts IX, X, and XI). The Stat e al so charged de fendant wi th aggravated crim

in al sex ual abuse (720 ILCS 5/12–16( c)(1) (i) (West 2004) ), al

l eg i ng tha t i n Nove m be r 20 02 h e k now i ngl y touched M.J. B.’s penis wi

th hi s f in gers for the purpose o f sexu al arousal (coun ts VII an d VIII). 1 Pu rsu ant to se cti

on 1 15– 10 of

the Code of Cri

mi nal Proc ed ure of 1963 (725 I LC S 5/115–10 (West 2004)), t he State fi le d a pretrial noticeof int ent t o int ro duc e hea rsa y sta t ement s o f K.J. K. a nd M.J.B. des cr ibing

t he allege d abu se. Defend an t o bj ected. At a heari

ng, Schuy le rCo unt y Sher iff

Do n Schi ef

erd ec ke r( Do n) an d o ne o f his empl oyees, An na Mari e Schi eferdec ker (A n n a M ari e) , te sti

f i ed to t he ci rcumstances o f t heir int er view s o f t he ch il dr en and intr od uce d t he chil dren’s wr itt en st at ement s, w hich Anna Mar ie and D on ha d transcrib ed. The State indi cated K.J.K. and M .J.B. would testif y a t t r ial. T he cir cu it courtfound the h earsay statements adm

is si ble under the statute, on the

cond i tion that the chi l dren testi f i ed. Defend ant fled t he jurisd ictio n pr ior t o t rial and wa s s ub se qu en t ly tried in absen tia i

n O ctober 2 005. Th

e ev i den ce a t tri al inc lu ded t est imony from K. J.K. and M .J. B. ; t heir mo t her , S usa n; AnnaMa r ie
and Don ; a

n ob stetric gy

ne col ogi st; a

nd two f orens i c sc i en

tists. Dr. Vic to ria Ni chol s-Johnson, an

o bst et r ic gyn

ecologi st, t estif

ie d she exam i ne d K .J. K . on

Ju ly 3, 20 03

. K. J. K. t o ld

her t hat her “mom’s husb and”had to uched her breasts and vagin a. When Dr. Nich

olsJoh ns on visually examined K.J .K. ’s ge ni tal ar ea, she obse

rved-3- “ch anges i n th e h y men al ri ng ” that sugg es ted

pos si bl e p en etra ti on by
an ext er nal objec t . S he encountered li tt le resi stance whe

n i nserti ng he r f i nge rs or a speculum in

to K.J.K.’s vag in

a, and opin

ed that “so mething had

b een there before.” Accor din g to Dr. NicholsJohnson, i t was “hi ghl y l ike ly that [K.J.K.] had been

abused.” Susan t est ifi ed t hat she and h

er chi ldren move d in with d efenda nt on Decem ber 16, 1999, and sh

e m arried def endan t o n Feb ruary 29, 2000. Th ereaf ter, Susan n

ot ic ed defe

ndan t “started t o fa vor ” K. J.K. and becam

e l ess f rien dly to ward M.J.B. Defen

dant also began disciplining

the chi ldren . He s pank ed t hem with a leat her st ra p and would “ scream

at them.” Susan t es t ified fu rt her t hat de fe nd ant often hugged a nd ki ssed K.J .K., and would grab her b utt ocks and breas

ts. When K.J.K. was 11 years old, def endan t t atto oed her

ba r e b ut t o ck wh ile she wa s p ar t ially cl ot hed and l y i ng on the d i ni ng r oom tab l e. W

hen K.J.K

. was 12 , Susan observed defendant rubbi ng lot ion on K.J.K.’s breasts. On o ne o cc as io n, Su sa n sa w d efe nda nt co ming o ut o f a shower he h

ad been shar ingwit h K.J. K. When S usa n co nfro nt ed him, he said he had b een he l pi ng K .J.K . wash h

er hai r. In Mar ch 20 03 S usa n moved ou t of d efenda nt ’s r eside nce. As she and the chi

l dren drove away , she as sure d K .J .K. and M.J.B. they
wo uld no t have t o live wit h defend ant aga in. K.J .K. and M.J.B. then tol d her defend ant had s exua lly abus ed t hem. S usa n re po rt ed t he allegat ions to the sheri

ff . In June 2003, Su san pr o vide d t he s her iff wi th t he co mfort er t hat K.J. K. ha d o n he r bed wh en th ey l i v ed wi th defen dan t. Su san t est ifi

ed s he and defend ant never enga ged in any
sex ual acti vi ty on the c omf orter. Anna Mari e testif

ie d she i nterviewed K.J.K . in

March 2003 at t he sheriff ’s dep ar t ment. Anna Mar ie wr ot e do wn t he que st ions s he asked K.J .K., f oll owed b y K.J .K.’ s answe

rs. T he stat em

ent was adm

itted i nto ev i den ce wi thout obj ection. Anna Mari e testif

ie d regardin g K.J.K.’s statement. In March

2000 K.J. K. wa s h

om e a l on e wi th defend ant when he ca me int o he rr o o m. He asked her if

she wan ted to have sex

an d s he sa i d n o. K.J.K. tried to le ave, but def

endan t blocked the door way , pushed her

do wn o n t he f l oor, and f

orced his pe nis in t o he r mo ut h. La t er t hat day de fendant
re tur n ed to K.J. K.’s ro om and aga in forc ed his p enis into her mou t h.2 K.J .K. ’s dir ect tes timony diff ere d f ro m he r out- of -c ou rtstate men t wi th
re ga rd to the time defen

dant began insert ing his penis inside her vagina , a nd the numb erof

tim es thi s oc curre d. A

cco rdi ng tothe transc ribed statem

en t, defendant be gan

having sexu al int ercou rs e with K.J .K. in June 200 2, and he rep eat ed this act abo

ut onc e a w

ee k. A cco rdi ng toK.J .K. ’s dir ect tes timony, which was less precise with regar d to dates, this co nd uct appare nt ly be gan about De ce m be r 2000 or January 2 001 a

nd was re pe ate d “a cou ple t imes a mon th.”
-4- Wh en he was f in is hed, he to ld her t ha t if she t o ld a nyo ne , he wo uld kill her. An

na Mari e asked K .J.K. if

this happen ed a gain, and s he repli ed: “ A ny ti me m y mom was gone, i

n the sh ower, or sl

eepi ng l ate.” In t he su mmer o f 200 1, K. J.K. was h om e a l on e wi th de f en da n t. K.J. K. had b locked the en

trance t o he rbe dr o o m, but defen dant forced his way in , pushed her down on the be d, and put hi s penis between h er legs, ru bbinghis p en is o n he rva gin al a r ea

. De fen da nt r ep ea t ed t his act alm ost every tim e K.J.K. was

home al one wi th hi m un til June 2002, when defen dant began

in sertin g hi s peni s i nsi de her vagina. Afte r Ju ne 2002 defen

dant had sex

ual in tercour se wi

th K.J.K. ab out once a

week. K.J. K. t est ifi

ed c ons iste nt ly with h e rst at eme nt t o Ann a M ar ie
re gar ding de fe nda nt fo rcin g hi s penis i

nto her mouth, between h er legs, and i

nto her vagi

na. 2 K.J.K. also explai

ned t ha t a c oupl e of mont hs aft er defend ant bega n put t ing his penis bet wee n her legs, he started put t ing his fingers in her vagina, t elling her he was doing i t so his penis w ou ld event ually “fi t .” K.J. K. a lso d esc ribed an ins t anc e when defen dant’s ej acul ate dripped

ont o he r c omfo rt er , a nd de fendant tol d he rt o wip e i t up wi t h so me pap er t ow els. K. J.K. ident ifi ed t he comf ort er as t he o ne Su san ha d t est ifi ed s he ga ve t o t he she riff. K.J .K. also t est ifi

ed a bou t defend ant rub bi ng coco a butt er on her breast s, showeri ng w i th her, an d putti ng a tattoo on her ri

ght b uttock. Do n, t he Schuy

le r County sh

erif f, testif ie d that in Marc h 200 3 he in terviewe d M.J. B. at the sher if

f’soffice. Do n wr ot e o ut t he qu est ions he asked M.J.B., fol

lowed b y M .J.B.’s answers. The statemen t was adm i tted i nto ev i den ce wi thout obj ection. Don testi fi ed regardin

g M.J.B.’s statemen

t. So me tim e after Tha nksg iving

2002, d ef endan t cam e i nto M.J .B.’s

room, g r abb ed M.J. B.’s penis, and b egan rubbi ng i t for abo ut 30 seconds. In Jan uary3 Although defendant was t ried a nd sentenced in abse ntia , he subs equently ret ur ned to t he juri sdicti on, and

has b ee n i n th e c usto dy of th e Illinois De partm en t o f Co rrec tio nssi nc e March

6, 20 07.
-5- 2003, defendan

t t oo k M.J.B. in

to the bathroom, put M.J .B. ’s ha nd on de fe n dant’s penis, and t old M.J .B . t o mo ve his hand up a nd do wn. M.J.B. did thi

s f or about one m

in ute, and defen

dant ej acul ated. Later that sam e m onth, d ef endan t too k M.J .B. in t o t he ba t hr o o m, pu t his pe nis in M. J. B. ’s mo ut h, an d t o ld him t o s uck it. M.J .B . t old t he she riff th at, su b se qu en tl y , de f en da n t f orc ed h i m to pe r fo rm t his s ame oralact an addi

tional three or four tim

es. Don al so test if

ie d about an Ap ri l 200 3 w ri tten sta tem en t by K .J. K . wh

i ch de scri be d how def endan t’s e j acul ate ca me to be on

her com f orter. M.J.B. t est ifi

ed, in relevant par t , t hat when he was abo ut eight y ears old def endan t touched M.J.B .’spen

i s i n M .J.B.’ s b edro om

. Other incident s o ccu rr ed in t he bat hro om. On o ne o cca sion, defend ant forced M.J .B. to t ouch defen

dant’s pen

is , and on three or four
occas i ons d

ef endan t put his penis i

n M .J.B.’ s m

outh. For en sic sci entis

ts at t he Il

li nois Stat e Police Forensi

c Sci enc e Lab oratory

testifi ed that the deoxyri

bonucl ei c acid (DN A) pr o file ide ntif ie d in a sem en stain on K.J.K.’s

comf ort er matched defendant ’s DNA prof i l e. Th e j ury con vi cte d de f en da nt on all 10 counts. Defen

dant fi le d a
moti on f or a n ew trial, w h i ch th e c i rc ui t co urt denied. In Novem ber 2 005 th e c our

t se n ten ce d def en da n t in absen tia 3 t o nine n at ur al life prison t er ms fo rpr ed at o ry cr iminal s ex ua l as sa ult of a ch i l d, e ach

to run consecu t ive ly , an

d a 14- yea r ex ten de d-te rm sente nc e f or aggra va ted cri m i na l sex ual abuse , to run con

currentl y
. The appella

te court aff

irm ed defend ant ’s co nvictio ns but modifi ed his nat ur al life prison sentences f rom consecut iv

e to concurre nt ter ms. 392 Ill . App. 3d 108. The court al so gran ted the State i ts statutory asse ssment of $ 50 a gainst defend ant as c os t s o f the app eal. We allowed de fen da nt ’s pe t it io n fo rlea ve t o ap pe al. Ill. S. Ct . R . 3 15 (e ff. Feb . 26, 201 0).-6- II. AN AL YSIS A. Direct Test im

ony of K .J.K. and M.J.B. Defend ant firs t ar gu es K. J. K. and M. J. B. did no t t es t ify in enough de t ail to ha

ve “ appe are d”f

or cr oss -ex am i na ti on wi thi n th e m ea ni ng of t he con f ron tati on cl au se . Sp ec i f

i ca l l y , de f en da n t con ten dsth e S tate fai le d t o as k K

. J. K. an d M

. J. B. “abo ut ea ch inc ide nt in e no ug h d et ail to establ is h each and ev er y element of e ver y cou nt ,” and d efenda nt was un ab le t o en ga ge in e ffec t ive cr o ss - ex amina t io n, in vio lat io n o f his right t o co nfr o nt at io n u nd er t he sixt h a me nd men t (U.S. Con st.,
am end. VI). The Stat e argues defend ant for feite d t his arg ument . “T o p re ser ve an alle ge d e rr o rfo rr ev iew , a d efe nd an t mus t r ais e a t imely obj ec ti on at trial and rai se t he error i

n a wri tt en posttrial

motion.” People v. Cosby , 231 Ill . 2d262, 271 (2008). “The f ai lure to object to alleged
err orat tr ia l an d r ais e t he iss ue in a po st t r ial mo t io n o r din ar ily re su l ts in the forfeiture of the issu e on appeal .” People v. Allen , 222 Ill . 2d 340, 350 (2006). Here, defenda nt did nei ther. He did n

ot obje ct at t r ial, as h e does be f ore this court , th at the c hi l d w i tne ss eswere n

ot av aila ble for cr o ss-exam

in ation, such

that admi

tt in g their h earsay t est imony vi ol ate d the c onf

ron tati on cl ause. No rdid he co nt en d in his
moti on for new trial that adm is si on of the hea

rsay testim ony v iolated his con frontation ri

ght; rather, he argued onl y tha t t he h earsay sta tem en ts wer e no t su f

f i ci en tl y re l i ab l e, an

appa re n t re f eren ce to se cti on 115–1 0(b )(1), whi

ch requi res a j udic ia

l de termi nation tha t “the t ime, content, and circum stanceso f t he st at ement pr ovid e su ffi cient saf eguards o f r elia bility

”(7 25 I LCS 5/ 115 –10 (b) (1 ) ( West 200 4) ). We t her efo re agr ee w ith t he St at e t hat defend ant has f orfei ted this is sue. D efen dant however m

ai ntain s that if we concl

ude there was forfe iture, we s hou ld re view t he is sue under the pla in -error doctr in

e. Ru le 61 5( a) , the b as i s f

or th i s d octr i n e, prov i de s: “ A

n y er ror, de f ect, irr eg ul ar it y, orvariance wh ic h does not aff

ect substanti al

r igh t s s ha ll be di sreg arded . Pl ai

n errors or defects af

fecti ng sub stantial

righ ts may be noticed al

thought hey wer e no t bro ught t o t he attention of the trial court.” Ill. S . C t . R . 6 15( a) . T he plain- er ro r d oc t rine cr eat es “a
na rrow and l im ited exception to the general rule of forfe iture, whose purpo se i s to pr otect th e ri gh ts of t he de fendant and t he inte gr ity and rep uta ti on of the j udic ia

l process.” Allen , 222 Ill . 2d a t 353 , c iting People v. Herron , 215 Il

l . 2d 167 , 177 (2 005). Th e def endan t bea rs-7- the b urden of e stab l i sh

i ng p l ai n error. Herron , 215 Il

l . 2d at 18 7. We obs er ve, initially

, t hat defend ant do es no t challenge in thi s co ur t t he ad equ acy o f K.J. K.’s t est imony wi th reg ard to coun

ts I, II, and II I. In his br ief, de fendant challenge s t he ad eq ua cy of the victim

s’ t est imony onl y wi th re sp ect to co un

ts I V, V, an d VI (i n v ol v i n g acts of va gi na l pe ne trati on ag ai n st K.J .K .) a

n d c oun ts VII, IX, X, and XI (i nv olv i ng M .J.B.). The firs t st ep in p la in-er ror review is to det ermi ne wh ether an
err oroc cu rred. In re M

.W. , 2 32 I ll. 2d 4 08, 431 (2 009 ). In mak ing t his de term

i na ti on, weconsi der whet her , a s de fendant ar gue s, t he Sta te im properly fai l ed t o as k t he vic t ims a bo ut ea ch inc ide nt in enough detail to est abl

ish the elem ents o f each c ount. Coun

ts IV t hro ugh V I a nd I X t hro ugh X I a ll charg ed d efenda nt wi th pre datory crim in al sexual assaul t o f a ch il d (720 ILCS 5/12–14. 1(a)( 1) (West 200 4)), and count VI I charged him with aggravated crimi

nal se xua l abuse (720 ILCS 5/12– 16(c)( 1)(i ) (We st 2004 )). To prove predatory
cr imin al sex ual as sa ul t of a ch i l d, t h e S tate n ee de d to s

h ow th at (1 ) defend ant wa s 1 7 y

ea rs of age or older when

he (2) comm

itted “an act of sexual penetration” wi

th (3) a vi ctim

under the ageof 13. 720 ILCS 5/12 –14.1(a)(1) (West 20 04 ). “ Se x ual pen etrati on ” is “an y con ta ct , however slight, bet wee n t he sex organ or anus of one person by

an ob j ect, the s ex

org an , mou th or anus of another perso n.” 720 ILCS 5/ 12 –1 2( f) (West 20 04 ). As def en da n t ackn owl ed ge d i n th e a pp el l ate cou rt, when t he St at e file s mu lt iple ch ar ge s, “t he St at e is not required to pro ve dates o f co mmi ss i on ,”b ut on l y to prov i de

“ som e w ay to dif f eren ti ate between” the v

arious counts. To pro ve aggr avated crim in al sexual abuse (count VII), the Stat e needed to show that (1) defend ant was17 y

ears of a ge o r o lder when he (2) comm itted “an act of sexual conduct ” with (3) a victim under the age o f 13. 720 ILCS 5/ 12 –1 6( c) ( 1) ( i) (We st 2004 ). “Sex ual conduct” is “any

in tentional or kno wing to uchi

ng or fondl

in g b y t he v

ictim or t he accus ed, either dir ec t ly o rt hr o ug h c lo t hing , o f ** * a ny p ar t o f t he bo dy o f a c hild under 13 years o f age *** f

or th e purp ose

of sexu al gra ti f i ca ti on or a rousal of the vi cti

m or the ac cus ed.” 7 20 IL CS 5/1 2–12( e) (Wes t 2004)

. It is undi sputed that defendan t was o ver t he ag e o f 17 a nd t he vic t ims were under the age of 13 when the off enses occur red. Th e q ues t ion, then, i s whether the State, thro ugh the v ictim s’ di rect-8- t es t imo ny, pr ove d “an a ct of se xual pe net ra t ion” wi th re ga rd to co un ts IVthrough VI and IX t hro ugh XI , a n d “ an act of sex ual con duct” wi th reg ard to coun

t VII. The counts pertaini

ng to K.J.K. alle ged

defen dant penetratedher vagina wi th his p en is o nc e in Ju ne 20 02 ( co un t I V) ; o nc e b et we en Ju ly 1, 200 2, and Fe bru ar y 28, 200 3 ( co unt V); and once o n app r o ximat ely March 1, 2003 (cou

nt V I). A t tri al , K .J. K . testi f

i ed tha t, on mult iple occasions, defen

dant “put hi s penis i

nsi de [her ] v agi

na” wh il e they
were in her bedroom, addi

ng that someti me s ej acul ate ran down her le g o nt o he rco mfo r t er an d t ha t “[ o ] cc as io na lly, after he was fi ni shed, [she ] w ou ld go t o t he bat hro om and it stung a li tt le.” Whi le K.J.K.’s t est imony was som ewhat uncl ear as to when every in

ci dent occurred, it never t heless e st abl i shed th at at least three acts occurred between June 2002 (co unt IV) and March 2003 (co unts V an d VI) . K. J.K. testifi ed t hat defend ant (1) fi

rst forced her to have oral se x “[ a] co up le months”a fterdefen

dant ma rried h er mother i

n Feb ruary 2000; (2) to uched her vaginal ar ea w ith his pe nis “[ a] c ou ple mont hs aft er he had started do in

g it oral”;(3) put his fingers in her vagina two o r three mont hs lat er ; a nd ( 4) be ga n ha ving va gin al int er co ur se wit h K .J .K. ap pr o ximat ely

thre e mont hs af

t er t ha t

. Ac co r di ng t o t his t es t imo ny, defend ant wo uld have begu n having vag inal inter co ur se w ith K. J.K. about Dece

m ber 2 000 o r Ja nuar y 2001 . K. J.K. t est ifi ed d efenda nt repeated t his act “a cou ple tim es a mo nt h” un t il K. J. K. mo ve d o ut in Marc h 20 03. The counts pertaini

ng to M.J.B. alleged

that (1) defen

dant touched M.J. B.’s pen

i s i n a bout Novem

ber 2002(coun

t VII); an d (2 ) on three occasions, twice i

n approxi ma t ely Janu ary 2003 (counts IX and X ) and o nce in Febr uar y 2003 (c ou nt XI ), defend ant pla ce d h is pe nis in M.J. B.’s mo ut h. At t r ial, M. J. B. t es t ified t ha t de fen da nt “[ p] ut his hand on [ M.J .B .’s ] p enis” w hen M. J.B . w as a bou t eight years old , a nd
su bse qu en t ly

defend ant placed his peni s in M.J.B.’s mouth “ [t]h ree or four t imes

. ” A cc o r di ng t o t his t es t imo ny, defend ant to uched M. J.B. ’s pe nis after

May 5, 2002 (count VII ), and pl aced his penis in M.J.B.’s
mouth “ three or four ti mes” there af ter (coun ts IX thr ough X I). Ac co r di ng ly, K.J.K.’s

and M .J.B .’s dire ct t est imony, st anding al one, was sufficient t o e st ablish the el em en ts of th e rel ev an t cou n ts agains t defen dant. We al so c oncl

ude, largel

y f or t hi s reason, that K.J.K.’s and M. J.B. ’s

di rect tes ti mony wa s s uf f i ci en t to al l ow f or-9- effect ivecross-exam

in ation. Thei

r direct testim ony provi ded enough de t ail to allow f

or cr os s-e xa minatio n wit hin the mea ning o f the
con f ron tation claus e. Our re view o f the record shows t hat bot h K.J. K. and M.J .B . a ns we red all

of the quest ions put to them by defense counsel on cr o ss - ex amina t io n. T he ir an swe rs we re f orthright. Th

ere wasno i ndi cti on the y were be i ng e va si ve

. The re is not hing in People

v. Learn , 396 Ill . App. 3d 891 (2 009),
a c ase on whi ch

def endan t reli es, that com

pels a d i f f eren t resul t. In Learn , the defe

ndan t was charged wi

th one count of aggravated crim in al se xu al a bu se

. T he vic t im wa s his fo ur - yea r - o ld ni ec e. P riorto t r ial, th e c i

rc ui t cou rt gra n ted th e S tate ’s se ct io n

11 5– 10 m

oti on to ad mit ou t -o f-co ur t st at ement s made by the vic t im t o he r fat her and two police off

ic ers. The m

ot ion was granted on condi tion thatth e chi ld te stif

y. A t t rial, the victim

testifi ed to pr elim

in ary m atter s but then beca me to o e mot ionally distr aug ht t o c ont inue, and there f ore did not testify on direct ex ami na ti on to a ny of the al l eg ed i nc i dents of sexual abuse. The

ci rcuit court co ncl

uded the chi ld n everthel ess had te stif ie d for purposes of secti on 115–10, and al lowed the State t o in tro duce her hea

rsay statem ents. The appel

la te court reversed, hold ingthat t he v

ic t im did not “te st ify

” wit hin the mea ning o f the statut e. The c our

t r ea son ed that a vi cti

m m ust gi ve “a ccus atory testi mony,” i.e. , “conf

ront t he def

endan t and accus e h

i m of [som e]thi ng.” Learn , 39 6 I ll. App. 3d at898-901. The court stated: “[T he v i cti

m ’s ] spoken

te s timony

was not incrim

in ating; thus, defend ant was no t con

f ron ted b y h i s a ccus er n or g i v en th e ri gh t to
r igo r o us ly

t es t t he ac cu sa t io n a ga inst him t hr o ug h c r o ss - ex amin ati on .” Learn , 396 Ill. App . 3 d at 901 -0 2. Her e, by cont ra st , K. J.K. and M.J.B. “accus ed” de fen da nt o f mult iple acts of sexua l a buse, through thei r di rect testi mony

. Learn i s disti

ngu i shab l e f rom th e ca se a t bar. Giv en that def endan t has f ail ed to dem

onstra te there wa s a ny err or with res pect to this

is sue, hi s f

orfei ture stands. See People v. Keene , 169 Il l . 2d 1, 17 -18 (19 95).

B. Constitutional

ity of Section 115–10 Defend ant next argues that section 115–10 i s uncons titutional on it s f ac e. D ef en da nt p oi nts to Craw ford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36 (2004 ), which r einte rp re t ed t he confrontation cl ause, and argues

th at,-10- in l i gh t of Craw ford , se cti

on 1 15– 10 v

i ol ate s th e c onf ron tation clause of t he Uni ted Stat es Consti

tut ion (U.S. Const., amen d. VI) as well

as that of the Illin

ois Constitut ion (Ill . Const

. 1970, a rt. I, §8). S pe cif ica lly, de f

en da n t con ten dsth e statu

te is u n con sti tuti on al because : ( 1) it impr o pe r ly inco r po r at es t he no w- de fun ct r eli abi lit y standa rd for det er mini

ng whe t her admissio n of he ar say t est imony comported wi

th th e c onf ron tati on c l au se , an

d (2 ) i t doe s n ot i n cor porate t he li mit at io ns o n a dm iss ibilit y imp o se d b y Craw ford

. Acco rd ingt o d efenda nt , t he hea rsa y sta t ement s in the cas e at b ar were impr o pe r ly

ad m i tted u nd er a n u nc ons ti tutiona l sta tute, se cti

on 115–10, and def

endan t “mus t receive a new tria

l.” I nit iall y, th ere is a

“ str ong p re su

m pti on ” th at a legislat ive
en ac t me nt p asse s co nst itu t ional must er , a nd a p ar t y challenging t he
con sti tuti on al i ty of a st at ut e bea rs t he bur den o f clear ly esta blishi ng it s inv alid it y. People v. Thurow, 20 3 I ll. 2d 35 2, 36 7 ( 20 03 )

. A st at ut e is unconsti tut iona l on i ts face only if no setof ci

rcumstances ex

is ts under whi ch it w ou ld be va

l i d. Napleto n v. Villag

e of Hinsdale , 229 Ill . 2d 296, 306 (2 008 ). “Thu s, s o lo ng as t her e exist s a sit uat ion in which a sta tute co uld be validl

y a ppli ed, a faci al chal le nge m ust fai l.” Hill v. Cow an , 202 Il

l . 2d 151 , 157 (2 002). W hether a st at ut e is constitutional

is a question of

la w, which we rev

ie w de novo

. People v. McCar ty , 223 Il l . 2d 109 , 135 (2 006). Secti on 115–10 provi des, i n perti nen t part: “(a) In a p ros ecution f

or a phy si cal orse xu al act perpetrat ed

upon or agains

t a child un

der the age of 13 *** t he followi

ng ev ide nce sh all b e adm itted as an exce ption t o t he hearsay rule: (1) t est imony by the vi ct im of an out of court st at ement made b

y the vi cti m tha t he or s he com pl ai ne d of such act to another; and (2) t est imony

of an out of co ur t st at ement made by t he vic t im des cr ibing

any co m pl ai nt of such ac t or m atter or de t ail pertaini

ng to any

act whi ch i s an el

em ent of an of f ense wh i ch i s th e sub j ec t of a p ros ecution

for a sex ual or phy sical act aga i nst that vi cti m

. (b ) S uc h t es t imon y sha ll on ly be a dmit t ed if: (1) The co ur t finds in a hear ing co nduc t ed o ut side t he-11- presence of th e j ur y th at t he t ime, co nt ent , a nd ci rc um sta nc es of t he st at ement pr ovid e su ffi cient saf eguards of rel

ia bi li ty; an d (2) The ch

i l d *** e i ther: (A) tes tif i es a t the proce edi

ng;or (B) is unavai la ble as a wit ne ss an d t he r e is
co rr obo ra t iveevi

dence of the act which i s the subj ect of the stat emen

t[. ]” 725 ILCS 5/115 –10 (W est 200 4). Sec ti on 115 –10 allows for a child vict im’s hears ay st at ement t o be adm itted unde r t wo sce nar ios: (1 ) t he cou rt d eems t he st at ement
r elia ble and the

chi l d testif

i es a t trial (s ubs ect ions ( b)( 1) and (b)(2 )(A)) ; or (2 ) th e c hi

l d doe s n ot testify , the statement i s deem

ed reli abl e, and the al

le gat ions o f se xu al a bu se ar e in de pe nd en t ly
corro borated (sub sections (b )(1) an d (b )(2)(B) ). Here , the c i rc ui t courtadm

i tted K.J .K .’s and M.J .B .’s hear say st at ement s und er t he f i rst sc enario, as b oth ch

i l dren testi f i ed at trial

. Under Craw

ford , th e c onf

ron tation c l au se

pos esno r

es tricti ons on t he ad m i ss i on of hearsay testim ony i f the dec la rant testifi es at t rial and i s pre sen t “to def end or ex plai n” that testi mony

. “[W ]e reiterate that, when the decl arant appea

rs for cro ssexam i na ti on at tri al , th e C onf

ron t at io n Claus e plac es no con strai n ts at al l on the us e of hi s prior t estim

onial stat emen ts. See California v. Green , 3 99 U .S . 1 49, 162 (1 970 ). *** The Clause does not barad miss io n of a st at ement so long as t he dec larant is

present attria

l to def end or ex plai n i t.” Craw ford , 541 U .S. at 59 n .9. Ac co r di ng ly, wher e K. J.K. and M.J .B. testi f i ed at trial

and were pr ese nt t o d efend o r e xplain t heir t est imony on cr os s-e xaminatio n, t he ad m i ss i on of thei r hearsay statements un

der se cti on 1 15– 10 d

oesnot violate the conf

rontat ion c la

use. 1. Ohio v. R oberts Rel

i ab i l i ty S tandard Defend ant argue s, ho we ve r , t ha t se ct io n 1 15 –1 0 is fac ially unconsti tut iona l because it i ncorporat es th e n

ow- repudi

ate d r el i ab i l i ty stan dard set f orth in Ohio v. Rober

ts , 448 U.S. 56 (1980) . Under Roberts , th e p r es en t at io n o f he ar sa y t es t imo ny o f an un av aila ble witnessco mpo rt ed w ith t he co nfro nt at ion clau se if the st at eme nt fell wit hin a “f irm ly roo ted hearsay

exception” or showed “particul arize d-12- guarantees of trustworthi

ne ss.” Roberts , 4 48 U .S . a t 66. The la nguage of s ec ti on115–10 tracks the Roberts st an da r d in pa r t be ca us e it all ows hear say st at ement s o f a child wit ness t o be admit t ed o nl y if–among ot her

thin gs–the ci rcuit court fin

ds th at “ th e ti me, con ten t, and ci rcumstances of the statement provide s uff ic ie nt saf egu ards of rel i ab i l i ty” (725 IL CS 5/1 15–10 (b)(1 ) (We st 2004 )). In Craw ford , ho we ve r , t he Su pr eme Court repudiated the Roberts
re l i ab i l i ty test. Craw

ford hel d that t he conf

rontat io n cl

ause requi

res t he re l i ab i l i

ty of t est imony to be t est ed t hro ugh c ro ss- examinat ion, and that no judi

ci al as se ssmen

t of “rel i ab i l i ty” m ay be su bs ti tuted f ort his f orm of c redi bi l i ty tes tin g. Craw ford , 541 U.S. at 61-62. Now, under Craw ford , t est imonial sta t ement s o f an unava ilable witnes s may be admi tt ed–regar dless

o f t he ir pe rc eived “r eliabili t y”–o nly i

f the defend ant had a pri

or o pport uni

ty to cro ss-exam

in e the de cl

aran t. Craw ford , 541 U .S. at 68. Sec ti on 115–10 sat isf

ies Craw ford i n pa rt. Under this statute, a chil d’s reli abl e h ea r sa y statem

en t, i.e. , o ne which ha s bee n fou nd
r elia ble un de rsu bs ec t io n ( b) ( 1) , is a dm iss ible o nly if ( 1) t he ch ild testifi es (subsection (b)(2)(A)), or (2) the child “ is u navai lab le as a witnessand t her e is co rr obo ra t ive evidenc e o f the act which is t he subj ect of the statem

en t” (sub section

(b)(2 )(B)). Un

der the se co nd
sc en ari o, whi ch does n ot appl y here, a st at eme nt de eme d r elia ble by
a judge could concei

vab ly be adm itted if t he ch ild

were “un avai la ble” and t he st at ement w as s upported b

y “c orroborati

ve evi den ce.” Craw ford , however, requi

res som eth i n g di f f eren t: wher e t he de clara nt is una va i l ab l e, the def endan t mu st ha ve had a pri o r opp ortun

i ty f or cr os s-e xaminatio n. The situation is di ff erent under t he f

irst
sce nar io– t he o ne at is su e i nth is c as e– be ca us e t he r e t he de cla r an t is not ab se n t, b ut testifies at tr

i al an d is pre se n t to defend or explain t he t est imony on cross-exam

in ation. See Craw

ford , 541 U.S. at 59 n.9. Admitt inga

he ar sa y st at eme nt un de rt he firs t sc en ar io th uscom por ts wit h Craw ford

. See People v. Cookson , 21 5 I ll. 2d 194 , 204 (2 005). Thata hear say

statem ent adm

itted under section 115–10 must me et t he additional rel

i ab i l i ty req ui rem en t of su bs ec ti on ( b) (1) i s n ot problem atic. See People

v. Reed , 361 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 99 5, 1002(2005 ). Indeed, t he r eq ui r eme nt o f “s uf fic ien t sa fe gu ar ds o f r elia bilit y” provides de f en da n ts wi th ad di tion al protecti on, i.e. , “

prote cti on over and abo ve the c onf

rontation cl

aus e.” Reed , 361 Ill . App. 3d at 1002;-13- acc ord People v. Cannon , 3 5 8 I ll. A pp

. 3d 31 3, 32 0 ( 20 05 )

. T his addi ti on al re l i ab i l i ty re quir ement do es no t affect t he con sti tuti on al i ty of section 115–10 b ecause h earsay tes t imony

st ill must sa t isfy Craw ford ’s co nst it ut io na l re qu ire men t s, in a dd it io n t o the sta tutory
r equ irement of relia

bi li ty. See In re E.H. , 224 Ill . 2d 172, 179-8 0 (2006 ). 2. “Bl anket Prohib ition” Defend ant nex

t contends that section 115–10 i s unconstitutional because it do es no t inc o r po r at e t he limit at io ns o n a dmis sibil it y i mposed by Craw

ford

. Sp ec ifica lly, d efe nd an t ar gu es t he st at ut e is unconsti tut iona l be ca us e i t “ f ai l s to i nc orporatea b l an

ke t proh i bi ti on of test im onial stat emen ts” where the decl

arant is absen t from trial

and t he de f ense ha d n o pri oroppor tun i ty f orcross -ex am

i na tion . Howev

er, he arsay e xcep t ions s uch a s sec t ion 1 15– 10 ne ed no t be co ext ensive wi th th e s cop e of

th e c on f ron tati on cl au se to pa ss con sti tuti ona l
m uster. See California v. Green , 399 U.S. 149, 155 (1970) (although “it may r ea dily

be conceded

tha t he ars ay rul esan d the C onf

ron tati on Clause are general

ly designed t o p ro t ect simi

lar valu es, ” t he overlap
ne ed n ot be com pl ete). I ndeed, th e ev i den

ti ar y qu esti on of wh eth er h ea rs ay testi mo ny s atisf ie s a statu

tory ex ce pti on (such as se cti on 11 5– 10 ) i s s ep arate fr o m, and antecedent to, t he i ssue of wh ether admit t ing t he t est imony satisf ie s the con f ron tation cl ause. See In re E.H. , 224 Ill . 2d at 179-80 (c our ts must engage in

two -step a nal

ysi s, fi rst stat uto ry an

d then
co nst it ut io na l, to determ i ne adm i ssi bi l i ty of he arsa y testi mony ). Because t es t imo ny is ad

m i ss i b l e on l y i f i t meets both evident iary and
co nst itu t ional r equ irement s, t he two st andardsne ed no t be ide nt ica l. In sum, we r eject defend ant ’s ar gument t hat sec t ion 1 15–10 is fac ially unconsti tut iona l i n l i gh t of Craw ford ’s r einte rp re t at ion o f the conf rontation cl

aus e.

C. St at ut or y Assessment Defendant’s final argu ment co ncer ns th e a pp el l ate cou rt’ s g ra n t to t he State of its s t at ut or y asses sment of $ 50 a gainst defend ant as costs of th i s ap peal

. Sec ti on 4–2 00 2 o f the Co unties Co de pr ovides that a St ate ’s Atto rney in a county such

as Schuy le r is e ntitled to a fee of

$50 “ [f ]or-14- each cas e o f app eal t ake n f

rom hi s c oun ty *** to the

Suprem e or A pp el l ate Court when

prosecuted *** by

hi m.” 55 ILCS 5/4–2002(a) (West 200 8) . D efenda nt ar gue s t hat t he ap pe llat e c o ur t he r e e rr ed in
or der inghi

m to pay thi

s $50 f ee b ecau se t he S t at e’ s A t t o rne ys A pp el l ate Pros ecutor ( SA

AP), a nd not th e Sc hu y l er C ount y S tat e’s Attorne y hersel f , prosec uted h i s ap peal

. T his is an issue of s

tat uto ry construct ion, which i s r e viewed de
novo
. People v. Carda mone , 232 Ill . 2d 504, 511 (2009). Wh en co nst ru inga st at ut e, t his co ur t see ks “t o g ive effect to the legislature’s i nten t,” consi deri

ng “t he su bject [t he st at ut e] add re sses and t he legisl atu re’s app ar ent objec t ive in enact ing it, ” and ad o pt ing t he pla in and ordi na ry mean i ng of the statutory term

s. Cardamone , 23 2 I ll. 2d at 512. Under the a ppl i cab l e statutory

sch em e, i t appea rs that an y ca se in whi ch S AAP ap pe ar s is , by ne ce ss it y, pr o se cu t ed o rde fe nd ed by a St ate ’s A ttorn ey. Se e 5 5 I LC S 5 /3 –9 00 5 ( W est 20 08 ) (i t i s S ta te’s Att or ney’s

du ty to co mm ence and p ro sec ut e all criminal act ions
ar ising ou t of his o r he r c ou nt y). M or eo ver , u nder sec t ion 4 .0 1 o f the Stat e’ s Attorne

y s A ppel l ate Prose cutor’s

Act, SAA

P attorney

s are a uthorized

t o “r epr ese nt t he Pe op le of t he St at e o f Illinois” in th e appe l l ate co ur t when “ req uested to do so and at t he di rection of” a St ate ’s Attorney . 725 ILCS 2 10 /4. 01 (W es t 200 8). On cetaki ng on t his r ep r es en t at io n, SA AP at t o rne ys ma y pr ep ar e, file and arguebr iefs in the appella

te court “wi

th the advi ce and co nsent o f the St ate ’s Attorne y .” Under t his statu te, it appea rs t hat S tat e’s At t o rne ys r et ain
a central role i n a n a ppea l ev en wh ere they

uti l ize SA

AP’ s se rvi ces

. We con cl ude , con trar y to d efen dant, that the a

ppel l ate court co rr ec t ly granted t he Stat e its $50 stat uto ry assessm ent in thi s c ase.

III. CONCLUSION We af f i rm the j udgm

en t of the appe l l ate court.

Af fi rmed.