Opinion ID: 2242593
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Hearsay Testimony of Vickie Jamison

Text: Testifying for the State, Vickie Jamison told the jury that defendant came to her trailer in the early morning hours of October 24, 1994, stayed the night, and then left around 8:30 a.m. Jamison also testified that, later on October 24, officers of the Belleville police department came to her trailer and requested information about defendant. According to Jamison, the officers informed her that defendant had killed somebody. Jamison also stated that she initially heard about defendant's involvement in the murder when she went to the public aid office and found out that [defendant] had killed somebody. Defendant argues that the foregoing statements made by Jamison were inadmissible hearsay and that, as a consequence of these statements, he was deprived of a fair trial. Defendant acknowledges that no objection was made to Jamison's remarks at the time of trial and, therefore, that the present claim of error is procedurally defaulted. Defendant also argues, however, that this court should review the claim of error under the plain error doctrine. For the reasons explained below, we find no plain error. Assuming, without deciding, that Jamison's testimony was hearsay, its admission was clearly harmless. The admission of hearsay evidence is harmless error where there is no reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant absent the hearsay testimony. People v. Nevitt, 135 Ill.2d 423, 447, 142 Ill.Dec. 854, 553 N.E.2d 368 (1990). There is no such probability here. The two statements made by Jamison were isolated comments made in the context of extended narrative testimony. Both statements were made in response to general inquiries by the State, and neither remark was elaborated upon in any way. Moreover, aside from Jamison's testimony, the evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming. Jacob Bollinger testified unequivocally that defendant attacked him and murdered his wife, JoAna. In statements given to the police, defendant confessed to the murder. DNA evidence strongly implicated defendant, and defendant was arrested with the murder victim's rings on his person. Given this evidence, we do not believe that Jamison's two remarks were a significant basis for defendant's convictions. We hold, therefore, that even if Jamison's two statements were hearsay, their admission was harmless error. Because we find no reversible error regarding Jamison's testimony, we also find no plain error. See Keene, 169 Ill.2d at 17, 214 Ill.Dec. 194, 660 N.E.2d 901.