People v. Hanson
| Citation | 345 Ill.Dec. 395,939 N.E.2d 238,238 Ill.2d 74 |
| Decision Date | 24 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 106566.,106566. |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,v.Eric HANSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Def., charles M. Schiedel, Deputy Def., Steven L. Clark, Asst. Appellate Def., of Office of State Appellate Def., of Chicago, for appellant.Lisa Madigan, Atty. Gen., of Springfield, Joseph E. Birkett, State's Atty., of Wheaton (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor Gen., Michael M. Glick, Eric M. Levin, Asst. Attorneys Gen., of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
[345 Ill.Dec. 399 , 238 Ill.2d 78] OPINION
Following a jury trial in February 2008, in the circuit court of Du Page County, defendant, Eric Hanson, was convicted of four counts of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9–1(a)(1) (West 2006)), two counts of armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/18–2(a)(1) (West 2006)), two counts of aggravated kidnapping (720 ILCS 5/10–2(a)(8) (West 2006)) and two counts of identity theft (720 ILCS 5/16G–15(a)(1), (d)(1)(D) (West 2006)). The jury found death to be the appropriate sentence on the murder convictions and the circuit court of Du Page County imposed a sentence of death. The circuit court also found that the armed robbery and aggravated kidnapping convictions merged into the murder convictions and, therefore, did not enter sentences on those counts. However, the circuit court did sentence defendant to concurrent terms of 15 years for the identity theft convictions. Defendant now appeals both his conviction and sentence.
Defendant was convicted of killing his sister, Katherine Tsao, and Katherine's husband, James. He was also convicted of killing his parents, Terrence and Mary Hanson. The bodies of the four victims were found in James and Katherine's home (the Tsao home) on September 29, 2005. Katherine and James had been bludgeoned. Terrence and Mary had been shot in the head. Police later determined that Terrence and Mary had been shot in their own home (the Hanson home) and then had been wrapped in tarps and transported to the Tsao home.
An investigation into the murders led police to the defendant after police spoke with defendant's other sister, Jennifer Williams. Jennifer told police that Katherine telephoned her six weeks prior to the murders, to tell Jennifer that defendant had been engaged in a scheme to obtain credit in their parents' names. Katherine also told Jennifer that defendant had threatened Katherine by saying that if she told their father what defendant had been
[345 Ill.Dec. 400 , 939 N.E.2d 243]
doing, he would kill her. The investigation quickly centered on defendant, leading to his arrest.
Prior to trial defendant filed several motions in limine, mostly attempting to prevent admission of opinion and hearsay testimony stemming from the investigation. One of these motions sought to prevent reference to Jennifer's belief that defendant was responsible for the crime. This motion was denied. The State also filed a motion in limine seeking to admit testimony from Jennifer regarding her phone conversation with Katherine six weeks before the murders. The circuit court granted this motion over defendant's objection. As discussed below, defendant has challenged both of these rulings.
The case proceeded to trial. At the guilt phase of the trial, the following evidence was heard.
Chiuchih Tsao, James's brother, testified that he and James worked together at a trading company. The last time he saw James and Katherine alive was around 5 p.m. on the day of the murders, when the two left work for the day. He then testified that James did not show up for work the next day. He thought it very strange that James did not arrive for work, so he went to the Tsao home. When he arrived, he first rang the bell. Then, when no one answered, he peered in a window. From the window, Tsao saw a woman on the floor with blood around her. He called his daughter, who, when she arrived at the house, called the police. The fire department arrived first and broke down the front door. Tsao testified that he saw a person sitting on the couch when he went into the house. He went upstairs but did not see anyone there. At that time police asked him to leave the house. During his testimony, Tsao also identified a watch that he had bought for James.
John Eul, an Aurora firefighter, then testified to the events following the emergency call to the Tsao home. Eul testified that when he and his partner arrived, they forced down the front door and entered the house. Inside they saw the bodies of Katherine, James, and Mary. Eul testified that they then determined the scene was not safe and exited the house.
Katherine Von Holten, Mary's coworker and friend, testified that she became worried when Mary did not show up for work on September 29. She testified that Mary had not called in to say she would be late. After noon, Von Holten called Mary at her house phone and cell phone but received no answer. At that point she and another coworker drove to the Hanson home. They entered the Hanson home with the help of a keypad code provided by Jennifer Williams. Inside the home, they noticed nothing out of the ordinary, other than a strong fire burning in the fireplace. Mary's coworkers then left a note for Mary. The note was left next to a note, written by defendant, which read: Next to this note was some cash. The note included a postscript that indicated this money was for “payment this month.” While Von Holten was at the Hanson home, Mary's nephew, Bob Stutelberg, arrived. Von Holten testified that Stutelberg also looked through the house. Stutelberg then drove the three of them to the Tsao home. By the time they arrived, emergency personnel had already arrived.
Stutelberg testified that defendant called him the morning of September 29. He testified defendant told him he was on his way to Midway Airport to catch a flight. Defendant asked if he would make it in time. Stutelberg testified defendant was going to be flying to California. He also testified that defendant mentioned he did not get much sleep the previous night,
[345 Ill.Dec. 401 , 939 N.E.2d 244]
as his mattress was “rotten.” In a second telephone call from defendant, defendant informed Stutelberg that he was at the airport and was going to make his flight.
Stutelberg also testified that on September 29 he received a call from one of Terrence's coworkers. The coworker told Stutelberg that Terrence had missed a meeting that morning. Stutelberg testified that it was unusual for Terrence to miss meetings. Stutelberg tried contacting Terrence and Mary by phone, but was unable to reach them. At this time, Stutelberg drove to the Hanson house, where he encountered Mary's coworkers. Stutelberg, too, mentioned that other than the fire in the fireplace, nothing appeared out of the ordinary in the house. Stutelberg then accompanied Mary's coworkers to the Tsao home.
Stutelberg further testified that between 5:30 and 6 p.m. he called defendant on his cell phone to tell him that the police were saying they found four bodies in the Tsao home. Stutelberg turned the phone over to Detective Nilles of the Aurora police department, who had a conversation with the defendant.
Christine Undesser testified that she and the defendant had gone out together on September 28, the night of the murders. She testified that she and defendant were out from 7 p.m. until around 9:30 p.m. During the evening defendant mentioned that he was flying to California to meet with Allison Beck, his ex-fiancée. Defendant drove Undesser to her home, arriving around 10 p.m. She and defendant talked for 15 minutes and then defendant left.
Allison Beck testified that she and defendant had known each other for six years. They began dating in 2002 and eventually decided to get married. When they were engaged, she and defendant moved to Illinois from Phoenix, living with defendant's parents. Beck testified that during the time they lived together, she had seen defendant looking through papers on Terrence's desk. She also testified that defendant had mentioned he would get an inheritance if his parents ever passed away.
In 2004, Beck broke off her engagement to defendant. At some point she moved to California, yet remained in contact with defendant. She testified that during the time they were dating, defendant was spending more money and buying nicer things. In May 2005, Beck inquired about defendant's finances and he replied that he was doing very well at his job. However, Beck also had spoken with Katherine several times in August 2005. As a result of these conversations, Beck checked her credit. During one phone conversation, defendant asked if Beck had been speaking with Katherine. Beck responded, falsely, that she had not been talking with Katherine. According to Beck, defendant responded, “If I ever find out, you are going to get it.” Beck asked him if that was a threat. Defendant replied, “It's a fact.”
Beck then testified about the week leading up to the night of the murders. She had invited defendant to a concert in Los Angeles. Defendant had agreed to go, and planned to fly to California on September 29. Beck testified defendant had told her his flight left Chicago at 9:30 a.m. and that he would be leaving his house at 6:30 a.m. in order to arrive at the airport in time. On the evening before he was to fly to Los Angeles, defendant called Beck around 11:30 p.m., Central time. Defendant said he had a bad connection, and asked Beck to call him back on his parents' home phone number. Beck did call him, and Terrence answered the phone at first. Defendant then answered another phone in the house, and Terrence hung up. Beck
[345 Ill.Dec. 402 , 939 N.E.2d 245]
and defendant then had a conversation about his trip to California. The next morning, defendant again called Beck to say that he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Bustos
- People v. Johnson
- People v. Villa
- People v. Davis
-
Table of Cases
...848 (1st Dist 2004), §§6:50, 6:90, 6:100, 17:90 People v. Hanserd , 136 Ill App 3d 928, 483 NE2d 1321 (1985), §11:50 People v. Hanson, 238 Ill 2d 74, 939 NE2d 238 (2010), §§6:10, 6:70, 6:200 People v. Harbold , 220 Ill App 3d 611, 581 NE2d 132 (1991), §2:200 People v. Harding, 401 Ill App 3......
-
Hearsay
...by wrongdoing doctrine, but did not specifically express if the doctrine extinguished confrontation clause claims. In People v. Hanson, 238 Ill 2d 74, 939 NE2d 238 (2010), the court explicitly recognized that the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine serves both as §6:20 Illinois Objections 6-1......