Court Opinion

ID: 9726611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:00:22.039503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:43.417479
License: Public Domain

dissenting: The majority has affirmed the circuit court of McDonough County, holding that the court did not err (1) in denying defendant’s motion for expert witness fees, (2) in conducting jury voir dire off the record in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 608(a)(9) (210 Ill. 2d R. 608(a)(9)), or (3) in admitting hearsay documents in evidence in violation of the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. VI), and the holding of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004). I concur with the decision that there was no error in denying expert witness fees. I disagree with the other two holdings and, therefore, respectfully dissent. ADMISSION OF EXHIBITS 4, 5, 6, AND 8 The confrontation clause of the United States Constitution says that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right *** to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const., amend. VI. In Crawford, 541 U.S. 36, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177, 124 S. Ct. 1354, the United States Supreme Court held that a testimonial hearsay statement is inadmissible, as violative of the confrontation clause, unless (1) the declarant is unavailable; and (2) the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant concerning the statement. The Crawford Court explained that hearsay statements are testimonial if they are “made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact” at trial. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 192, 124 S. Ct. at 1364. Testimonial statements include those made in affidavits “that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially” and “statements *** made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statements] would be available for use at a later trial.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51-52, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 193, 124 S. Ct. at 1364. Thus, under Crawford, the threshold test in this case is whether the hearsay statements, in exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 8 were testimonial. I would find that the statements in these exhibits were testimonial because they were made (1) for the purpose of establishing or proving the fact that the defendant’s blood alcohol content was 0.08 or greater at the time of the offense; and (2) under circumstances that would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statements would be available for use at a DUI trial. Specifically, the page of the logbook in exhibit 6 was created in anticipation of criminal litigation against the defendant and other defendants named on the page. This page referenced the Intoxilyzer tests that were the subjects of Danay’s affidavits in exhibits 4 and 5. These three documents taken together (exhibits 4, 5, and 6) show that they were created in anticipation of criminal litigation against the defendant and other defendants. Clearly, the Intoxilyzer readout in exhibit 8 was made in anticipation of DUI litigation solely against the defendant. Therefore, the documents in exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 8 contained testimonial hearsay statements. Having established that exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 8 were testimonial hearsay statements, under Crawford, the next question is whether the declarants of the statements were unavailable. Danay was the declarant of exhibits 4 and 5. Both Danay and Borders were the declarants of exhibit 6 because both of their signatures appeared on the document next to the relevant entries. Borders was the declarant of exhibit 8. The record does not show that Danay was unavailable. Clearly, Borders was available because he testified. Exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 8 fail the Crawford test concerning the unavailability of the declarants of testimonial hearsay statements. Because the record shows that the declarants were not unavailable, it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendant also had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarants. See Crawford, 541 U.S. 36, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177, 124 S. Ct. 1354. Thus, I believe exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 8 were inadmissible under the holding of Crawford. In this case, the trial court admitted the disputed exhibits under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. In criminal trials in Illinois: “Any writing or record, whether in the form of an entry in a book or otherwise, made as a memorandum or record of any act, transaction, occurrence, or event, shall be admissible as evidence of such act, transaction, occurrence, or event, if made in regular course of any business, and if it was the regular course of such business to make such memorandum or record at the time of such act, transaction, occurrence, or event or within a reasonable time thereafter.” 725 ILCS 5/115 — 5(a) (West 2006). However, with exceptions that are not applicable to the present case: “No writing or record made in the regular course of any business shall become admissible as evidence by the application of [section 115 — 5] if *** [s]uch writing or record has been made by anyone during an investigation of an alleged offense or during any investigation relating to pending or anticipated litigation of any kind[.]” 725 ILCS 5/115 — 5(c)(2) (West 2006). Under section 115 — 5(c)(2), exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 8 were not admissible as business records. As stated above, these documents were created during investigations relating to anticipated DUI litigation, and therefore were inadmissible as business records. Moreover, these exhibits essentially were police reports, which Illinois courts have long held to be inadmissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. See People v. Smith, 38 Ill. 2d 13, 230 N.E.2d 188 (1967); People v. Shinohara, 375 Ill. App. 3d 85, 872 N.E.2d 498 (2007). While I acknowledge that in People v. So Young Kim, 368 Ill. App. 3d 717, 859 N.E.2d 92 (2006), the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, ruled that an affidavit certifying the accuracy of a Breathalyzer did not violate the confrontation clause under Crawford, I believe Kim to be factually distinguishable from the situation we consider here. In Kim, unlike the present case, the court did not discuss whether the affidavit was related to the Breathalyzer logbook entry that concerned the defendant. In the present case, however, Danay’s affidavits, taken together with the logbook entry concerning the defendant, show how the affidavits and the logbook entry were created in anticipation of the litigation in this case. Furthermore, the Kim court did not consider a readout from the Breathalyzer, as the court did in the instant case. Because Kim is factually distinguishable from this case, I would find its ruling to be inapplicable. Additionally, the Kim court rejected the holding of a persuasive case from another jurisdiction that was raised by the parties in this case, which is Shiver v. State, 900 So. 2d 615 (Fla. App. 2005). I agree with the reasoning in Shiver. The Shiver court noted that the only purpose for preparing an affidavit concerning the accuracy and calibration of a Breathalyzer is so that the document may be used in litigation. Indeed, the only reason for a Breathalyzer’s existence is for DUI litigation. As the Shiver court pointed out, the result of a Breathalyzer test is only admissible if the machine has been properly tested for accuracy and calibration. Thus, documentary evidence concerning a Breathalyzer’s accuracy and calibration also only exists in anticipation of DUI litigation. Certainly there are other persuasive cases from foreign jurisdictions that have disagreed with the holding of Shiver, including a second court from the same state as Shiver. See, e.g., Pflieger v. State, 952 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. App. 2007); Jarrell v. State, 852 N.E.2d 1022 (Ind. App. 2006). Nonetheless, I believe the Shiver decision to be more well-reasoned than the cases that disagree with Shiver. In summary, I find that exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 8 were inadmissible in this case, as violative of the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution, under the holding of Crawford. I further find that these exhibits were not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, contrary to the trial court’s ruling. Therefore, I would hold that the trial court erred as a matter of law by admitting these exhibits in evidence, in violation of the defendant’s constitutional right. The exhibits in question concerned whether the defendant was DUI because his blood alcohol content was 0.08 or greater, under the elements of section 11 — 501(a)(1). Although the defendant was not sentenced under section 11 — 501(a)(1), the evidence at issue was also admissible to show that he was DUI under section 11 — 501(a)(2), for which he was sentenced. Thus, the defendant is entitled to a new trial because the jury considered this inadmissible evidence in reaching its decision, for which there was a final judgment. See People v. Oehrke, 369 Ill. App. 3d 63, 860 N.E.2d 416 (2006). Because I would reverse and remand for a new trial based on the Crawford issue, it is unnecessary to reach the other issues raised by the defendant. However, I think it is important to point out that, despite its seemingly contradictory actions, the Illinois Supreme Court clearly reiterated that Rule 608(a)(9) (concerning the presence of a court reporter during jury voir dire) is not a mere suggestion but, rather, has the force of law and is to be obeyed. See People v. Houston, 226 Ill. 2d 135, 874 N.E.2d 23 (2007). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, I concur on the issue of the denial of expert witness fees and respectfully dissent from the balance of the majority’s decision. I believe this matter should be remanded to the circuit court of McDonough County for a new trial.