Court Opinion

ID: 9741292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:52:48.180255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:23.279584
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE GREIMAN, specially concurring: Like an entombed vampire, every now and again "Count Res Gestae” moves the cover of his coffin and begins to circulate in the world of litigators and judges, promising them that they no longer must provide rational analysis or appropriate explanations for exceptions to the hearsay rule. Instead, they need only mutter "res gestae” to cover a multitude of sins. Traditionally, the phrase "res gestae” was used to describe words which accompanied the key litigated fact, such as the murder, collision or other occurrence which was the specific subject of the action. However, use of the term grew to allow words accompanying any relevant act or condition admitted into evidence. 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 268, at 207 (4th ed. 1992). During the last 70 years, every major commentator has criticized the notion of res gestae because of its imprecision. E.g., 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 268, at 206-08 (4th ed. 1992); M. Graham, Cleary & Graham’s Handbook of Illinois Evidence § 803.2, at 549 (4th ed. 1984); 6 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1745, at 191-93 (Chadbourn rev. ed. 1976); Morgan, A Suggested Classification of Utterances Admissible as Res Gestae, 31 Yale L.J. 229 (1922). Our supreme court rejected res gestae more than 30 years ago in People v. Poland (1961), 22 Ill. 2d 175, 174 N.E.2d 804. (See also Rockford Clutch Division, Borg-Warner Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 62, 224 N.E.2d 830, and this court’s most recent comment in Kellman v. Twin Orchard Country Club (1990), 202 Ill. App. 3d 968, 560 N.E.2d 888.) The Poland court believed that reliance upon this concept failed to contribute to an understanding of the problems of hearsay and further inhibited any reasonable analysis. Poland, 22 Ill. 2d at 178. The court’s more recent comment on res gestae appeared in People v. Tye (1990), 141 Ill. 2d 1, 18, 565 N.E.2d 931, where the court concluded that: "At trial, defense counsel did not specifically invoke the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, relying instead on the more general, and disapproved, res gestae concept.” (Emphasis added.) Despite decades of uniform criticism of the use of res gestae, the majority has elected to let the res gestae vampire out of its coffin. I would hope that this concurring opinion can be the equivalent of a stake in the heart of res gestae and that the coffin lid may be securely fastened. Otherwise, I concur in the result.