## Facts

- Drew Peterson, a former police officer, was charged with two counts of first-degree murder arising from the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, found dead in a bathtub.
- Savio’s death was initially ruled accidental, but after Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared in 2007, Savio’s body was exhumed and later autopsies classified the death as a homicide.
- The State sought to admit eight hearsay statements made by Savio and Stacy to third parties (including a pastor and an attorney) describing abuse and implicating Peterson.
- The State moved in limine to admit the statements under (1) the statutory “intentional murder of a witness” hearsay exception (725 ILCS 5/115-10.6) and (2) forfeiture by wrongdoing (Ill. R. Evid. 804(b)(5)).
- The trial court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Peterson murdered Savio and caused Stacy’s death or disappearance with intent to make them unavailable as witnesses.
- Despite that finding, the trial court excluded several statements after concluding that section 115-10.6 displaced forfeiture by wrongdoing and required a separate showing that each statement was reliable/trustworthy.
- The State pursued an interlocutory appeal; after a prior dismissal for untimeliness, the Illinois Supreme Court exercised supervisory authority and directed the appellate court to decide the merits.

## Issues

1. Whether 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 supplants the common-law forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine (Ill. R. Evid. 804(b)(5)), so that hearsay is inadmissible unless the statute’s reliability requirement is satisfied.
2. Whether, after a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant intentionally procured the declarants’ unavailability as witnesses, the declarants’ hearsay statements are admissible under Ill. R. Evid. 804(b)(5) without an additional judicial finding of reliability/trustworthiness.

## Decision

- The appellate court held it had jurisdiction to decide the appeal under the Illinois Supreme Court’s supervisory order.
- The court reversed the trial court’s exclusion of the statements and remanded.
- The court held the trial court’s view that section 115-10.6 displaced forfeiture by wrongdoing was manifestly erroneous.
- Given the trial court’s unchallenged finding that Peterson intentionally made the declarants unavailable as witnesses, the hearsay statements were admissible under Ill. R. Evid. 804(b)(5) without a separate statutory trustworthiness analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Ill. R. Evid. 804(b)(5) codifies forfeiture by wrongdoing and admits hearsay against a party who engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing intended to, and that did, procure the declarant’s unavailability as a witness.
- For admission under Ill. R. Evid. 804(b)(5), the proponent must show (by a preponderance of the evidence) intent and causation as to the declarant’s unavailability; the rule does not add an independent reliability/trustworthiness requirement.
- 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 provides a separate hearsay exception for an intentionally murdered witness and imposes an express reliability and relevance condition.
- The statutory exception and forfeiture by wrongdoing coexist; the statute does not abrogate the common-law doctrine, and statements may be admissible under Rule 804(b)(5) even if they do not satisfy the statute’s added reliability element.
- Once forfeiture by wrongdoing is established, the defendant forfeits hearsay and confrontation objections to the declarant’s statements within the scope of the doctrine.

## Conclusion

The appellate court ruled that Illinois’s murdered-witness hearsay statute does not replace forfeiture by wrongdoing; because the trial court found Peterson intentionally procured the declarants’ unavailability, their statements were admissible under Ill. R. Evid. 804(b)(5) without an additional statutory reliability finding, requiring reversal and remand.


People v. Peterson, 968 N.E.2d 204 (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. 2012)