People v. Lofton
Decision Date | 22 November 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 87434., No. 87382 |
Citation | 194 Ill.2d 40,740 N.E.2d 782,251 Ill.Dec. 496 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Anthony W. LOFTON, Appellee. The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Richard Stewart, Appellee. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
James E. Ryan, Attorney General, Springfield, and David R. Akemann, State's Attorney, St. Charles (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, William L. Browers and Jay Paul Hoffmann, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, and Norbert J. Goetten, Martin P. Moltz, and Gregory L. Slovacek, Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Elgin, of counsel), for the People in No. 87382.
G. Joseph Weller, Deputy Defender, and Darren E. Miller, Assistant Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Elgin, for appellee in No. 87382.
James E. Ryan, Attorney General, Springfield, and John C. Piland, State's Attorney, Urbana (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, William L. Browers and Jay Paul Hoffmann, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, and Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Kathy Shepard, Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Springfield, of counsel), for the People in No. 87434.
Daniel D. Yuhas, Deputy Defender, and John M. McCarthy, Assistant Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Springfield, for appellee in No. 87434.
In both of these cases, consolidated here, the defendant was convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child. In one, cause No. 87382, we consider the right of confrontation granted by the United States Constitution and the Illinois Constitution (; ). In the other, cause No. 87434, we consider the right of due process granted by the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. XIV, § 1). We address each cause separately.
M.H.'s mother said that after Christmas of 1996 the child was her "normal self." However, after her mother informed her two days before trial began that she would have to testify about this matter, her mother said, M.H. had The child's mother answered in the affirmative the question posed to her by the State as to whether she felt that her daughter "would suffer some trauma if she were forced to come into the courtroom and testify about what Mr. Lofton did to her in his presence." Responding to a question on cross-examination, she stated, "I think she will have some trauma if she has to testify and look at your client, yes." Ray Bramel, a sexual assault coordinator at the Community Crisis Center in Elgin, testified likewise about the child's extreme withdrawal shortly after the incident occurred and her dramatic improvement since that time. This witness testified that on the morning of the hearing M.H.'s "words were to please keep us safe from Anthony" but that in all other respects she was "assertive, full of affect, lively."
After M.H. was seated as a witness, the trial court stated outside the presence of the jury, Thereupon the following colloquy ensued between defense counsel and the trial court:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Matt
...present is a right that is personal to a defendant, and may not be waived by that defendant's counsel."); People v. Lofton, 194 Ill.2d 40, 251 Ill.Dec. 496, 740 N.E.2d 782, 797 (2000) ("When the accused is not present in person, the error is not cured by the presence of his counsel, as his ......
-
People v. Martinez
...by subjecting it to rigorous testing in the context of an adversary proceeding before the trier of fact." People v. Lofton , 194 Ill. 2d 40, 56, 251 Ill.Dec. 496, 740 N.E.2d 782 (2000). The constitutional right to confrontation includes the right to hear and view a witness as he or she test......
-
In re EH
...of a defendant's constitutional right to confrontation may be harmless error has been followed recently in People v. Lofton, 194 Ill.2d 40, 61, 251 Ill.Dec. 496, 740 N.E.2d 782 (2000); People v. McClanahan, 191 Ill.2d 127, 139, 246 Ill.Dec. 97, 729 N.E.2d 470 (2000); People v. Davis, 185 Il......
-
People v. Stoecker
...error analysis. People v. Averett , 237 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 340 Ill.Dec. 180, 927 N.E.2d 1191 (2010) ; People v. Lofton , 194 Ill. 2d 40, 61, 251 Ill.Dec. 496, 740 N.E.2d 782 (2000). Harmless error analysis is "based on the notion that a defendant's interest in an error-free [proceeding] must be......
-
Table of Cases
...Ill App 3d 413, 574 NE2d 1345 (1991), §11:160 People v. Lisle, 376 Ill App 3d 67, 877 NE2d 119 (3d Dist 2007), §6:50 People v. Lofton , 194 Ill 2d 40, 740 NE2d 782 (2000), §2:40 People v. Lombardi , 305 Ill App 3d 33, 711 NE2d 426 (1999), §§12:20, 12:30 People v. Long , 316 Ill App 3d 919, ......
-
Jury Selection
...regarding a response to a jury’s question was an ex parte conversation and error; however, it was harmless error); People v. Lofton , 194 Ill 2d 40, 740 NE2d 782 (2000). In People v. Johnson , 238 Ill 2d 478, 939 NE2d 475 (2010), the Illinois Supreme Court applied plain error analysis in a ......