Opinion ID: 3135576
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Right of Confrontation at Second Phase of

Text: Sentencing Hearing During the second phase of the sentencing hearing, over defense counsel’s objection, the State was permitted to admit into evidence the affidavit of Steven Farrell Dozier, former director of the Arkansas State Police. The affidavit stated that in 1986, Dozier had been an investigator in the criminal investigation division of the state police. He assisted a local police department in the investigation into the origin and cause of a house fire. Property had been stolen from the -34- premises. In his opinion, the fire had been set to cover the crimes of burglary and theft. He subsequently interviewed defendant, who was in custody in Tennessee awaiting extradition to Arkansas to face other charges. Defendant confessed to the break-in and the theft of property, but initially denied setting the fire. He also admitted to another break-in and theft earlier the same day. Defendant consented to the search of the room that he occupied in his mother’s home. The stolen property from the two homes was found in his room. In addition, other stolen property was recovered from individuals who stated that they purchased the items from defendant. Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary, theft, and arson and was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment, with 12 years suspended. The State also called Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney Jamie Santini, who testified that on September 10, 2003, he interviewed Romanette Norwood, defendant’s girlfriend, at the Oak Park police department. Norwood was advised of her rights and signed a Miranda waiver. After several hours of questioning, she consented to have her statement videotaped. The tape and a transcript of her statement, which is summarized above, were admitted into evidence and the tape was played for the court. Defendant notes, correctly, that the Dozier affidavit and the Norwood statement are hearsay. Thus, he argues, his sixth amendment right to confront the witnesses against him was violated by admission of these items of evidence because he did not have the opportunity to cross-examine either declarant. This court has long held that hearsay evidence is admissible at the second phase of a capital sentencing hearing so long as the evidence is relevant and reliable. People v. Free, 94 Ill. 2d 378, 423 (1983). This standard was called into question by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177, 203, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1374 (2004), which held that the hearsay statement of a witness who is unavailable at trial may not be admitted against a criminal defendant if the statement is testimonial in nature, unless the defendant has had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the witness regarding the statement. Crawford did not consider whether the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment is applicable at the aggravation/mitigation phase of a capital sentencing hearing. -35- We answered this question in People v. Banks, 237 Ill. 2d 154, 203 (2010), holding that the confrontation clause does not apply at the second phase of a capital sentencing hearing and reaffirming the standard of relevance and reliability. At the second phase of a capital sentencing hearing, the ordinary rules of evidence are relaxed so that the jury and/or the trial court may have the fullest information possible with respect to the defendant’s life, character, criminal record, and the circumstances of the particular offense. People v. Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d 81, 171 (1998). As noted, the only requirement for the admissibility of evidence at this phase of a capital sentencing hearing is that the evidence be relevant and reliable. This determination rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 125 (2001). In the present case, the contents of the Dozier affidavit were both relevant and reliable. The affidavit provided the court with accurate information taken from official records regarding defendant’s long criminal history, evidence that tends to negate one of the statutory mitigating factors. See 720 ILCS 5/9–1(c)(1) (West 2002) (the fact that a defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity may be used as a mitigating factor). Defendant argues that Norwood’s statement was not reliable because his own statements to the police implicated her in the burglary and murder and, thus, he argues, she had a “powerful incentive to place all of the blame” on him. He cites Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 541, 90 L. Ed. 2d 514, 526, 106 S. Ct. 2056, 2062 (1986), for the proposition that the natural desire to exonerate oneself when talking to the police makes the statement of a codefendant presumptively unreliable. Lee is inapposite. In that case, the defendant challenged the admission of a codefendant’s confession as substantive evidence against him at trial in a noncapital case. At that time, a hearsay statement could be admitted against a criminal defendant without violating the confrontation clause so long as the statement met an exception to the hearsay rule and the statement was sufficiently reliable to warrant its “untested admission.” Lee, 476 U.S. at 539, 90 L. Ed. 2d at 525, 106 S. Ct. at 2061, citing Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597, 607, 100 S. Ct. 2531, 2538-39 (1980), abrogated by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 158 L. Ed. 2d -36- 177, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004). The Court held in Lee that the codefendant’s statement “as the confession of an accomplice, was presumptively unreliable and that it did not bear sufficient independent ‘indicia of reliability’ to overcome that presumption.” Lee, 476 U.S. at 539, 90 L. Ed. 2d at 525, 106 S. Ct. at 2061. In the present case, Norwood is not a codefendant and her videotaped statement was not a confession. She was not charged with any crime in connection with the burglary and murder. Other than her frank admission to illegal drug use and assisting defendant in some earlier burglaries, the only evidence that might have implicated her in the crimes of which defendant was accused was her possession of the stolen watch, sunglasses, and eyeglasses. Her explanation that defendant gave these items to her is entirely plausible. In addition, no physical evidence connects her to the crime scene and there is no evidence at all of more than one intruder. All of the evidence is consistent with her version of the events, including defendant’s use of the black duffle bag and the sale of the stolen computers to Hoskins. The only suggestion that she was involved in any way was made by defendant. Thus, it is defendant who attempted to shift some of the blame to Norwood, perhaps in an effort to undermine her credibility if she should testify as a witness against him. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting her statement, which was sufficiently reliable, relevant to his conduct in the immediate aftermath of the brutal murder and his mental state in the days following, and tended to show his lack of remorse.