People v. Johnson

18 Citing cases

  1. State v. Rodriguez

    312 Ill. App. 3d 920 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 76 times
    In Rodriguez, this court reversed the defendant's conviction for first degree murder after finding that the identification testimony from two witnesses was conflicting and unreliable.

    While we agree that the trial court properly allowed the detectives to corroborate Bolton's identification of defendant with his prior consistent statements (see Beals, 162 Ill.2d at 508, 643 N.E.2d at 795; 725 ILCS 5/115-12 (West 1996)), any statement regarding the defendant's name and identification from an undisclosed source constitutes inadmissible hearsay, as explained more fully below. See Beals, 162 Ill.2d at 508, 643 N.E.2d at 795; People v. Johnson, 199 Ill. App.3d 577, 582, 557 N.E.2d 446, 449 (1990). B. Hearsay

  2. People v. Ebony F. (In re Zariyah A.)

    2017 Ill. App. 170971 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 30 times
    In ZariyahA., the court cited, as illustrative of the "necessary" rule, cases in which a police officer is describing his course of conduct, and it specifically notes that, while an officer may testify that he had a conversation with someone and acted upon the information received, the officer cannot testify about the substance of the conversation.

    For example, in criminal cases we have held that, "[t]o establish his course of conduct, a police officer may testify that he had a conversation with an individual and that he subsequently acted on the information received," but "cannot testify as to the substance of his conversation with the individual because that would be inadmissible hearsay." People v. Johnson , 199 Ill. App. 3d 577, 582, 145 Ill.Dec. 676, 557 N.E.2d 446 (1990). ¶ 90 In their briefs, the State and the GAL argue that the admission of Ms. Hale's testimony regarding the substance of her conversation with the mental health clinician was, at most, harmless error because there was properly admitted documentary evidence in the record from which the trial court could have concluded that Ebony was bipolar.

  3. People v. Carter

    2013 Ill. App. 110905 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    " 'To establish [his] course of conduct, a police officer may testify that [he] had a conversation with an individual and that [he] subsequently acted on the information received.' " People v. Mims, 403 Ill. App. 3d 884, 897 (2010) (quoting People v. Johnson, 199 Ill. App. 3d 577, 582 (1990). " 'However, the officer cannot testify as to the substance of [his] conversation with the individual because that would be inadmissible hearsay.' "

  4. People v. Wright

    2013 Ill. App. 103232 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 40 times

    “ ‘To establish [his] course of conduct, a police officer may testify that [he] had a conversation with an individual and that [he] subsequently acted on the information received.’ ” People v. Mims, 403 Ill.App.3d 884, 897, 343 Ill.Dec. 342, 934 N.E.2d 666 (2010) (quoting People v. Johnson, 199 Ill.App.3d 577, 582, 145 Ill.Dec. 676, 557 N.E.2d 446 (1990)). “ ‘However, the officer cannot testify as to the substance of [his] conversation with the individual because that would be inadmissible hearsay.’ ”

  5. People v. Bowman

    2012 Ill. App. 102010 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 58 times
    In Bowman, this court stated that evidence of a third person's reputation for violence may be admissible in a case of self-defense where an innocent victim is injured as a result of the defendant's actions. Bowman, 2012 IL App (1st) 102010, ¶ 33.

    Further, the officers admitted Knighton was mentioned in police reports and that Detective Proctor spoke with Knighton. “ ‘To establish [his] course of conduct, a police officer may testify that [he] had a conversation with an individual and that [he] subsequently acted on the information received.’ ” People v. Mims, 403 Ill.App.3d 884, 897, 343 Ill.Dec. 342, 934 N.E.2d 666 (2010) (quoting People v. Johnson, 199 Ill.App.3d 577, 582, 145 Ill.Dec. 676, 557 N.E.2d 446 (1990)). “ ‘However, the officer cannot testify as to the substance of [his] conversation with the individual because that would be inadmissible hearsay.’ ”

  6. People v. Mims

    403 Ill. App. 3d 884 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that a decision involving a matter of trial strategy typically will not support a claim of ineffective counsel

    "To establish [her] course of conduct, a police officer may testify that [she] had a conversation with an individual and that [she] subsequently acted on the information received." People v. Johnson, 199 Ill. App. 3d 577, 582 (1990). "However, the officer cannot testify as to the substance of [her] conversation with the individual because that would be inadmissible hearsay."

  7. People v. Sims

    285 Ill. App. 3d 598 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 35 times
    Concluding that error in admitting evidence was harmless because it was cumulative of properly admitted evidence

    To establish his course of conduct, a police officer may testify that he had a conversation with an individual and that he subsequently acted on the information received. People v. Johnson, 199 Ill. App.3d 577, 582, 557 N.E.2d 446 (1990). The officer cannot, however, testify as to the substance of the conversation with the individual because that would be inadmissible hearsay.

  8. People v. Soto

    2023 Ill. App. 3d 220029 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    Hearsay consists of an out-of-court statement offered to show the truth of the matter asserted. People v. Johnson, 199 Ill.App.3d 577, 582 (1990).

  9. People v. Saulsberry

    2021 Ill. App. 2d 181027 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 16 times

    In ZariyahA. , the court cited, as illustrative of the "necessary" rule, cases in which a police officer is describing his course of conduct, and it specifically notes that, while an officer may testify that he had a conversation with someone and acted upon the information received, the officer cannot testify about the substance of the conversation. Zariyah A. , 2017 IL App (1st) 170971, ¶ 89, 419 Ill.Dec. 576, 93 N.E.3d 695 (citing People v. Johnson , 199 Ill. App. 3d 577, 582, 145 Ill.Dec. 676, 557 N.E.2d 446 (1990) ). Thus, in these cases, the heightened "necessary" standard, which defendant seeks to elevate to a universal standard for any evidence offered for the effect on the listener, arises specifically in the context of police investigations and interrogations.

  10. People v. A.W. (In re A.S.)

    2020 Ill. App. 200560 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 15 times

    Thus, we can find no error in the admission of those statements. ¶ 28 Additionally, even if there were statements that were inadmissible, the statements would be cumulative of other evidence that was properly admitted at the hearing. "[T]he erroneous admission of hearsay evidence is harmless error where it is merely cumulative of other, properly admitted, evidence in the record." In re Zariyah A., 2017 IL App (1st) 170971, ¶ 90 (citing People v. Johnson, 199 Ill. App. 3d 577, 583 (1990)); see also In re Chance H., 2019 IL App (1st) 180053, ¶ 53; In re A.B., 308 Ill. App. 3d 227, 237 (1999). In the case at bar, there is ample evidence in the record, including admissions by respondent herself, that respondent engaged in violent behavior such as pushing her mother and throwing a vacuum cleaner, and that respondent displayed agitated and aggressive behavior on multiple occasions while at the hospital.