Court Opinion

ID: 9519699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:22:59.817948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:37.185061
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE TRAPP, specially concurring: While concurring in the affirmance, I cannot agree with the conclusion that the testimony of Hurrelbrink regarding decedent’s stated intention to go to the “blockhouse” was inadmissible hearsay. Notwithstanding the statement in the opinion, such testimony was held to be properly admitted in People v. Reddock, 13 Ill.App.3d 296, 300 N.E.2d 31, which discusses such statements of intention as an exception to the hearsay rule in the light of the unavailability of the declarant and the reasonable probability of trustworthiness of such statement where there was no apparent reason for fabrication by declarant. See also the cases collected in Annot., 113 A.L.R. 268 (1938). Again, such testimony would appear to be admissible under Rule 803(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, effective July 1, 1975.