People v. Richardson

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Rodriguez

    2022 Ill. App. 200315 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 11 times

    Conversely, where a "defendant was present in court for the section 115-10 hearing, including the testimony of multiple live witnesses," the trial court viewed video of the interviews of the child for purposes of section 115-10 in chambers, but those videos were played at trial in the defendant's presence, the "defendant was able to view all of the State's evidence against him at trial, and his decision regarding his right to testify was not impacted." People v. Richardson, 2021 IL App (1st) 190821, ¶ 53. The Richardson court distinguished Lofton, where

  2. People v. Flagg

    2021 Ill. App. 191692 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 8 times
    In Flagg and here, the VSI videos affected the outcome of the trial and the defendants had no independent or personal knowledge of their contents.

    ¶ 48 In recent cases involving a trial court's in-chambers review of evidence, this court has explained that where the defendant is "able to view all of the State's evidence against him at trial" it follows that "his decision regarding his right to testify [is] not impacted" by the procedure. See People v. Richardson, 2021 IL App (1st) 190821, ¶ 53; see also People v. Martinez, 2021 IL App (1st) 172097, ¶ 69. Martinez is instructive.

  3. People v. Villa

    2023 Ill. App. 210352 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    ¶ 57 In People v. Richardson, 2021 IL App (1st) 190821, ¶ 53, the "defendant was present in court for the section 115-10 hearing, including the testimony of multiple live witnesses." The trial court viewed video of the interviews of the child for purposes of section 115-10 in chambers, but those videos were played at trial in the defendant's presence.

  4. People v. Aquisto

    2022 Ill. App. 4th 200081 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 35 times
    In People v. Aquisto, 2022 IL App (4th) 200081, ¶¶ 25, 53, the defendant failed to object to the admission of a prosecution exhibit and then attempted to advance the forfeited argument on appeal as ineffective assistance of counsel.

    Flagg, 2021 IL App (1st) 191692-U, ¶ 48 (quoting People v. Richardson, 2021 IL App (1st) 190821, ¶ 53). Since the video was of defendant's being interviewed by the police, he must have known what was in the video.

  5. People v. Maniwa

    2021 Ill. App. 4th 190796 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 6 times

    He was present when argument was made regarding the evidence. See Young, 2013 IL App (4th) 120228, ¶ 24 (finding the defendant's right to be present was not denied when the defendant was present for the proceedings before the DVDs were viewed and during argument about whether statements from the DVDs should be admitted but not during the viewing itself); see also People v. Richardson, 2021 IL App (1st) 190821, ¶¶ 4, 45, 61 (following Young). Because defendant's presence at the court's viewing of admitted evidence would not have "contributed to his opportunity to defend himself against the charges" (Lofton, 194 Ill.2d at 72), defendant was not denied the right to be present at a critical stage of proceedings.

  6. People v. Duckworth

    2021 Ill. App. 4th 180740 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 6 times

    We note such an argument could reasonably have been made. See People v. Groebe, 2019 IL App (1st) 180503, ¶¶ 51-52, 145 N.E.3d 411 (finding the defendant's presence at the trial court's in camera viewing of a traffic stop and arrest during trial was not at a critical stage of the proceedings as the officer testified to the events and accuracy of the video and the defendant was able to cross-examine the officer and argue regarding the contents of the video); People v. Richardson, 2021 IL App (1st) 190821, ¶¶ 2, 61 (finding the defendant was not denied his right to be present when the trial court viewed videotaped evidence in camera during a pretrial hearing upon concluding the viewing did not occur at a critical stage of proceedings); People v. Young, 2013 IL App (4th) 120228, ¶¶ 24-25, 996 N.E.2d 671 (same); cf. Lucas, 2019 IL App (1st) 160501, ¶ 5 (distinguishing Young on the basis the in camera viewing of the video was for the purposes of establishing admissibility at trial and not the "actual offer as substantive evidence"). However, because such argument was not raised or countered and the matter may be readily resolved based on consideration of whether defendant was denied a fair trial, we make no determination on this ground.