Court Opinion

ID: 9716612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:46:05.594891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:47.251928
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, specially concurring: I disagree with the dicta that in some cases the absence of a defendant at a section 115—10 hearing may be permissible (303 Ill. App. 3d at 848-49). In my view, the defendant is entitled to be present at a section 115—10 hearing to the same extent that he is entitled to be present during the taking of evidence at a trial. In many child sex abuse cases, section 115—10 hearsay may be the only evidence supporting the victim’s allegations. At the section 115—10 hearing, no one can know with certainty whether the alleged victim will be called or be able to testify at trial. The section 115—10 hearing is an important stage of the case against the defendant, .unlike a pretrial hearing where only legal arguments are made. In Stincer, defendant was excluded from a pretrial competency hearing for two child victims of sex abuse, but the court there stressed that the questions asked did not relate to the crime itself, but to general capacity to tell the truth. See W. LaFave & J. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 24.2, at 1011-12 (2d ed. 1992). Finally, I stand by my special concurrence in Peck, that compliance with section 115—10 does not automatically satisfy constitutional requirements.