Court Opinion

ID: 9524415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:52:34.310099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:57.856738
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WOLFSON, specially concurring: I do not see how we can decide this case without holding section 115 — 10.4, as it existed at the time of trial, was unconstitutional on its face. The legislature recognized that Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), nullified the statute, which was amended to include the Crawford requirement of a prior opportunity of the defendant to cross-examine the testimonial declarant. Instead, the majority treats the former statute as if it included a cross-examination requirement. It did not, and we should not pretend it did. I agree with the majority’s analysis of the right of the defendant to cross-examine. I agree that the defendant’s right to cross-examine his accuser was violated in this case. But my agreement is based on the sixth amendment, not on some provision we might engraft on a patently unconstitutional statute. I have no disagreement with the Illinois Supreme Court’s instruction that nonconstitutional issues should get first consideration. Melchor, 226 Ill. 2d at 34-35. I just do not see how we can do that in this case. In short, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the defendant’s conviction should be reversed, but not the path it used to get there.