People v. Patterson

Supreme Court of Illinois · 2005 · Evidence

217 Ill.2d 407 (2005)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseHarmless ErrorSearch WarrantsIneffective Assistance of CounselCrawfordtestimonial hearsaygrand jury testimony

Facts

At trial, the State called defendant's girlfriend, Migdalia Rivera, but she invoked the fifth amendment and refused to answer questions. Over objection, the trial court admitted Rivera's prior grand jury testimony, which included statements about the couple's cell phone, their travel, and a blanket similar to one found wrapped around the victim's body. Other evidence showed the victim's blood in defendant's living room, similarities between defendant's blanket and the blanket found with the body, and phone records and testimony contradicting defendant's account of the cell phone and his whereabouts. Police also seized undeveloped film from defendant's burned residence under a warrant authorizing seizure of photographs, later developed it, and introduced resulting photos at trial.

Issue

Whether admission of Rivera's grand jury testimony, when she was unavailable at trial and defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine her, required automatic reversal or was subject to harmless-error review. The court also considered whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress photographs developed from seized film and whether the evidence and sentence should stand.

Rule

Testimonial hearsay, including grand jury testimony, may not be admitted against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. A Crawford violation is a trial error, not a structural defect, and is therefore subject to harmless-error analysis; the question is whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, the error did not contribute to the verdict, assessed by considering the error itself, the strength of the other evidence, and whether the improper evidence was cumulative. A warrant authorizing seizure of photographs encompasses undeveloped film, and the authority to seize such film includes authority to develop it.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a murder trial in Peoria, the prosecution reads to the jury a non-testifying witness's prior grand jury testimony after the witness refuses to answer questions at trial. The defendant never had any prior opportunity to cross-examine that witness, but other admissible evidence independently places the defendant with the victim shortly before death and links the victim's blood to the defendant's apartment.

If the reviewing court finds a confrontation clause violation, what is the proper disposition?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, admission of testimonial hearsay such as grand jury testimony without a prior opportunity for cross-examination violates the confrontation clause. But that violation is a trial error, not a structural defect, so it is subject to harmless-error review. The State bears the burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.