Court Opinion

ID: 9779717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 00:39:33.437789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:38.651831
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE APPLETON, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision on the basis that the judgment of the trial court cannot be sustained because reasonable doubt as to respondent minor’s guilt exists. The State and the attorney for the minors stipulated that the testimony of the alleged victims could be received by admission of their recorded statements, which were made to DCFS at the CAC. The trial court found those statements to not be credible. The determination of respondent’s guilt then had to be decided on the evidence of his interview with the DCFS investigator and the Paxton police. Both the DCFS investigator and the chief of police testified that Austin made an inculpatory admission during their interview of him. Both Austin and his father denied that any such admission was made. It is obvious from the testimony at trial that Austin’s interview was a highly charged event. Since two different recollections of this interview exist, it proves the wisdom, if not the practical'necessity, for recording such interviews by sound, if not by video. Because the evidence as to Austin’s alleged admission is a tie, with no particularized finding by the trial court that it believed one version over the other, I would reverse the adjudication as not being founded on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court’s judgment in finding to the contrary is more a result of its stated suspicion in its order that “something” had happened. More is required to sustain a juvenile adjudication with severe and lasting consequences to the respondent minor.