Court Opinion

ID: 9714230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:33:32.97064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:24.523341
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, concurring: With the exception of the majority’s treatment of defendant’s claim concerning Egan’s co-conspirator testimony, I agree with the analysis and result in this case. I write separately to address that claim. As the majority correctly notes, a statement of one co-conspirator is admissible against the others as an admission if made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy. (164 Ill. 2d at 290.) Statements made in furtherance of the common design are those that had the effect of advising, encouraging, aiding, or abetting its perpetration. See M. Graham, Cleary & Graham’s Handbook of Illinois Evidence § 802.10 (6th ed. 1994); People v. Howard (1991), 209 Ill. App. 3d 159, 187; People v. Miller (1984), 128 Ill. App. 3d 574, 585. Egan testified that defendant told him that he would be receiving "a lot of money.” (164 Ill. 2d at 288.) This statement, made during the period when defendant was yet attempting to obtain money from Walters for the murder, was clearly made during the course of the conspiracy. Further, as the statement had the potential of assuring Egan’s continued cooperation and concealment of the murder, the statement was conceivably in furtherance of the conspiracy. Thus, this portion of Egan’s testimony was properly admitted under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule. Egan’s other testimony concerning defendant’s comments, however, does not fit within the exception and should not have been admitted. Specifically, as the majority recites, Egan testified that defendant described to him, with particularity, the details concerning the home invasion and murder. (164 Ill. 2d at 292.) These statements, though made to Egan during the continuing course of the conspiracy, did not serve to further any purpose of the conspiracy. They were merely a narrative of past events. As this portion of defendant’s statements to Egan was not in furtherance of the plan to commit the murder or to receive compensation therefor, they should not have been admitted. Notwithstanding the impropriety in the admission of this portion of Egan’s testimony, defendant was not prejudiced. It appears that the statements were merely cumulative of other properly admitted co-conspirator testimony concerning the details of the murder. See Howard, 209 Ill. App. 3d at 187 (holding that although the State failed to show how comments by one co-conspirator were in furtherance of the conspiracy, error in their admission was harmless where it could not reasonably have affected the verdict).