No. 21-7427

William Gregory Snow v. Illinois

Lower Court: Illinois
Docketed: 2022-03-22
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-law constitutional-rights due-process evidence-rule excited-utterance hearsay hearsay-exception impeachment prior-consistent-statements witness-testimony
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2022-04-14
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Third District Appellate Court of Illinois' ruling unconstitutionally expanded the scope of the excited utterance exception to hearsay as codified in Illinois Rules of Evidence 803(2)

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The 12th Judicial Circuit Court of Hlinois allowed the prosecutor to admit multiple hearsay statements both verbal and written given to the same person at different times and under different circumstances under the excited utterance exception to hearsay as codified in IRE 803(2) when text messages, the content of a two-hour phone conversation, and a photograph of a.two-page statement purportedly rewritten more than 14 hours after the alleged events, were all admitted into evidence as excited utterances. Petitioner was unable to find case law in Illinois or in any other jurisdictions where multiple hearsay statements made by a declarant, verbal and written, given to the same person at different times and under different circumstances qualified as excited utterances. In Rule 803(2) of the Illinois Rules of Evidence which is substantively the same as Rule 803(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the excited utterance exception to hearsay provides that a hearsay statement must be made spontaneously and provide a “circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness” to qualify as an excited utterance. The questions presented are: I. Whether the Third District Appellate Court of Illinois’ ruling unconstitutionally expanded the scope of the excited utterance exception to hearsay as codified in INinois Rules of Evidence 803(2) when the multiple hearsay statements admitted at trial were made to the same person at different times and under different circumstances and when the statements did not meet the threshold requirement of spontaneity to qualify as excited utterances. II. Whether petitioner was denied the constitutional right to due process under the law when the State repeatedly used multiple hearsay evidence as prior consistent statements to bolster the testimony of the uncorroborated and heavily impeached witness. , 1

Docket Entries

2022-04-18
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2022.
2022-03-23
Waiver of right of respondent Illinois to respond filed.
2022-03-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 21, 2022)

Attorneys

Illinois
Katherine Marie DoerschOffice of the Illinois Attorney General, Respondent
Katherine Marie DoerschOffice of the Illinois Attorney General, Respondent
William Gregory Snow
William Gregory Snow — Petitioner
William Gregory Snow — Petitioner