People v. Ochoa, 2017 IL App (1st) 140204 (February). Episode 315 (Duration 29:55) Defendant's murder conviction is reversed a second time for the same reason it was reversed the first time (Cameron Hearing Problem).
Facts Defendant was accused of being the shooter in gang killing that killed a 15 year old girl.
The intended victim was her boyfriend who was standing right next to her. Two codefendants were arrested near the scene. They were interrogated and they gave up the defendant.
The investigation then shifted to identifying and finding the defendant.
Eventually, defendant was also arrested and he too confessed to being the shooter.
Hearsay Evidence First of all, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Testimony by a third party as to statements made by another non testifying party identifying an accused as the perpetrator of a crime constitutes hearsay testimony and is inadmissible.
Codefendant Statements Therefore, a codefendant’s statement incriminating a defendant is inherently unreliable, particularly when the co-defendant does not testify at trial and cannot be cross-examined.
The introduction of a co-offender’s hearsay statement implicating the defendant violates the defendant’s sixth amendment right to confrontation. U.S. Const., amend. VI.
Steps In The Investigation When it comes to testimony outlining the steps in an investigation the case law goes both ways.
Pro Our supreme court has held that law enforcement officers “may recount the steps taken in the investigation of a crime, and may describe the events leading up to the defendant’s arrest, where such testimony is necessary and important to fully explain the State’s case to the trier of fact.” People v. Simms, 143 Ill. 2d 154, 174 (1991).
In addition, a law enforcement officer “may testify about his conversations with others, such as victims or witnesses, when such testimony is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the other, but is used to show the investigative steps taken by the officer.” Simms, 143 Ill. 2d at 174.
“Testimony describing the progress of the investigation is admissible even if it suggests that a non testifying witness implicated the defendant.” Simms, 143 Ill. 2d at 174. The gist of this argument is that the steps in an investigation is not hearsay. Because the testimony is not being used to prove the matter asserted, but instead is being used to explain the step in an investigation.
Against Then there is People v. Boling, 2014 IL App (4th) 120634 which counsels that out-of-court statements that explain a course of conduct should be admitted only to the extent necessary to provide that explanation and should not be admitted if they reveal unnecessary and prejudicial information.
An officer may not testify to information beyond what is necessary to explain his or her actions.
The trick here is to make sure that the State not use the limited investigatory procedure exception to place into evidence the substance of any out-of-court statement that the officer hears during his investigation, and only elicits such evidence to establish the police investigative process.
This is a very fine line to walk.
Fine Line Case law clearly says there is a distinction between an officer testifying to the fact that he spoke to a witness without disclosing the contents of that conversation and an officer testifying to the contents of the conversation.
Under the investigatory procedure exception, the officer’s testimony must be limited to show how the investigation was conducted, not to place into evidence the substance of any out-of-court statement or conversations for the purpose of establishing the truth of their contents. The police officer should not testify to the contents of the conversation, since such testimony is inadmissible hearsay.
This Case On appeal, defendant first contends that he was denied a fair trial where the trial court allowed two police officers to testify to the substance of the co-defendants’ statements implicating defendant as the shooter.
According to defendant, the State’s actions on retrial mirrored its actions at defendant’s first trial for which this court reversed and remanded the cause for a new trial.
The Exact Testimony The State responds that there was, in fact, no error; that the detectives’ testimony was properly admitted for the limited purpose of showing the course of their investigation; and that any error that did occur was cured by the trial court’s limiting of the testimony.
The specific testimony with which defendant takes issue is the following testimony by Detective Garcia:
ASA [Q]: After these line-ups, Simon and Bentazos were still in custody at Area 4, correct?
DETECTIVE GARCIA [A]: Yes.
Q: After dealing with Bentazos and Simon, what did you do next in this investigation?
A: We...
0 Comments