Court Opinion

ID: 9526071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:11:32.629288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:19.869989
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE STAMOS specially concurring: While I concur with the determination in the majority opinion, I do so for the reasons assigned below. In Illinois four requirements must be met before the hearsay exception known as “declarations against interest” may be invoked. First, the declarant must be “unavailable.” Second, the declaration must be against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the declarant. Third, the declaration must concern facts which were personally cognizable by the declarant. Fourth, it must appear that the declarant had no probable motive to falsify the facts declared. German Insurance Co. v. Bartlett, 188 Ill. 165, 173, 58 N.E. 1075; Frazier v. Burks, 95 Ill.App.2d 51, 56, 238 N.E.2d 78; Haskell v. Siegmund, 28 Ill. App.2d 1, 9, 170 N.E.2d 393. In the case at bar plaintiff faffed to satisfy the second and fourth requirements. The prior testimony of PhffHp Spagnola that he purchased Hquor and was drunk on the night in question could not be interpreted as being pecuniarily disserving, and the record provides no basis upon which we could conclude that said testimony was coHateral to any declarations which were against his pecuniary interest. In addition, Spagnola’s prior testimony may have been a deliberate fabrication for purposes of establishing the defense of intoxication in his criminal trial for the offense of murder. I express no opinion as to whether such was his intent, but merely observe that there existed a probable motive to falsify the facts declared. Because plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements for invoking the “declaration against interest” exception to the hearsay rule, I agree that this cause should be reversed and remanded. Having reached that conclusion, I find it unnecessary and inadvisable to determine whether the requirement of “unavailabffity” was satisfied.