Court Opinion

ID: 9739325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:12:17.259898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:10.506684
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE O’MALLEY, specially concurring: I write separately to stress that it is not, as the majority claims, a “close issue” whether the trial court’s decision to exclude Kefentse’s statements was arbitrary. 367 Ill. App. 3d at 666. The substantive law and the standard of review combine in this case to make affirmance compelled. Generally, the substantive law is disposed against the admission of third-party confessions to a crime. In Chambers, the United States Supreme Court said that such confessions “are often motivated by extraneous considerations and *** are not as inherently reliable as statements against pecuniary or proprietary interest.” Chambers, 410 U.S. at 300, 35 L. Ed. 2d at 311, 93 S. Ct. at 1048. Such confessions are admissible, held the Court, if made under circumstances that provide “ ‘considerable assurance of reliability.’ ” Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 130, 144 L. Ed. 2d 117, 130, 119 S. Ct. 1887, 1897 (1999), quoting Chambers, 410 U.S. at 299, 35 L. Ed. 2d at 311, 93 S. Ct. at 1047. Our supreme court has held that such confessions are “generally inadmissible” (Penny, 205 Ill. 2d at 433). While Kefentse’s statements each met at least two of the Chambers factors, “the existence of one or more of the [Chambers] factors does not make a statement necessarily trustworthy.” Gallano, 354 Ill. App. 3d at 957. Rather, “it is for the trial court to determine by the totality of the circumstances whether it considers the hearsay statement to be trustworthy.” Gallano, 354 Ill. App. 3d at 957. The substantive law, then, tends toward the exclusion of third-party confessions, and by virtue of that law alone Kefentse’s statements were presumptively suspect. There is another presumption at work here, too, and it favors our affirming the trial court’s decision excluding those statements. Our review here is nearly “no review at all” (D.T., 212 Ill. 2d at 356), for we are to sustain the trial court’s decision unless it is “fanciful, arbitrary, or unreasonable to the degree that no reasonable person would agree with it” (Ortega, 209 Ill. 2d at 359). As the majority explains, Kefentse’s statements lacked any real corroboration. Kefentse supposedly told Martin and Lumont that he (Kefentse) killed the victim, but he provided absolutely no details about the shooting and made no suggestion as to what could have been his motive. In fact, neither the statements nor their context tells us who Kefentse is other than that he knew Martin and Lumont and that he was with Lumont sometime on the night of the shooting. I suggest that the Tenney presumption was designed precisely to guard against a confession like Kefentse’s: a bare, unsubstantiated “I did it!” from a person who emerges from the woodwork. By calling this a “close issue” the majority implies it is close to believing that the trial court came to a decision with which no reasonable person could agree. I do not share this view. Quite to the contrary, I believe the trial court’s decision clearly comports with the applicable case law. I should also point to some remarks that preface the majority’s analysis of Kefentse’s statements. The majority claims that it “most likely” would have admitted Kefentse’s statements had it been in the trial court’s position. 367 Ill. App. 3d at 663. I cannot dispute the truth of this remark, nor do I question its appropriateness, for the majority does well to contrast the role of a trial court with that of an appellate court. However, I do wonder what point is served with the majority’s further remark that “[m]any other [trial] judges likely would have also [admitted Kefentse’s statements].” 367 Ill. App. 3d at 663. I do not know if “many” judges would have admitted the statements, but I do know of two judges who did not admit them, namely, Judge McGraw in this case and Judge Grubb in the companion case, People v. Ross, No. 2 — 04—0391 (2006) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23), where Kefentse’s statements were also proffered.