Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

People v. Sharp

355 Ill. App. 3d 786 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Sharp

26 Citing cases

  1. People v. Bueno

    358 Ill. App. 3d 143 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 20 times
    In People v. Bueno, 358 Ill. App. 3d 143, 153-54, 829 N.E.2d 402, 410-11 (2005), the Second District Appellate Court cited Sharp approvingly regarding its analysis of when a hearsay declarant is present for cross-examination under Fensterer and Owens.

    As a threshold matter, then, we must determine whether Sergio "appear[ed] for cross-examination" within the context of Crawford. People v. Sharp, 355 Ill. App. 3d 786, 792 (2005), a recent case from the Fourth District, is instructive on this matter. In Sharp, the defendant was charged with predatory criminal sexual assault.

  2. People v. Hampton

    387 Ill. App. 3d 206 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 23 times

    Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n. 9, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 198 n. 9, 124 S. Ct. at 1369 n. 9. In People v. Sharp, 355 Ill. App. 3d 786 (2005), the Fourth District discussed what it meant to "appear for cross-examination" for purposes of the confrontation clause. In Sharp, the defendant was charged with predatory criminal sexual assault.

  3. People v. Learn

    371 Ill. App. 3d 701 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 6 times
    In Learn, a panel of this court held that a child witness was unavailable for purposes of section 115-10 of the Code where after admitting that she knew the defendant as her aunt's husband and stating that she did not like the defendant but did not know why, the witness began to cry and did not answer any more questions. Learn, 371 Ill. App. 3d at 705-07.

    Rolandis G., 352 Ill. App. 3d at 783-84. The State, citing to the Fourth District Appellate Court decision in People v. Sharp, 355 Ill. App. 3d 786 (2005), argues "that the key question is whether the declarant was present for cross-examination and answered defense counsel's questions." In Sharp, the victim testified "at some length" about "what she did and with whom she did it" on the day that she was sexually assaulted.

  4. People v. Sharp

    391 Ill. App. 3d 947 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 44 times
    Refusing to address the defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's remarks under the plain-error doctrine where, "[e]ven accepting defendant's contention that the complained-of remarks were improper *** they did not result in substantial prejudice to defendant or compromise the fairness or integrity of the trial process"

    In March 2005, this court disagreed with defendant's arguments and affirmed his conviction. People v. Sharp, 355 Ill. App. 3d 786, 825 N.E.2d 706 (2005) (hereinafter Sharp I). Defendant filed a petition for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court of Illinois.

  5. People v. Sandefur

    378 Ill. App. 3d 133 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that were the defendant's use of his penis to touch the victim's buttocks was for no purpose other than the defendant's sexual arousal, battery instruction was not warranted

    At the section 115-10 hearing, the trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the hearsay statements and should consider the following factors in making a reliability determination: "(1) the child's spontaneity and consistent repetition of the incident, (2) the child's mental state, (3) the child's use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age, and (4) the child's lack of motive to fabricate." People v. Sharp, 355 Ill. App. 3d 786, 796, 825 N.E.2d 706, 714 (2005), citing People v. Cookson, 335 Ill. App. 3d 786, 791, 780 N.E.2d 807, 811 (2002). "The State bears the burden of proving that the statements were reliable and not the result of adult prompting or manipulation."

  6. People v. Reed

    361 Ill. App. 3d 995 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 46 times
    Affirming trial court's admission of other-crimes evidence after concluding that the evidence was admissible to show propensity under section 115-7.3 even though "[t]he trial court apparently did not rely on section 115-7.3" and "neither party cited that statute in the proceedings below"

    We ask whether section 115-10, reasonably interpreted, violates the confrontation clause in all conceivable circumstances. In Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 203, 124 S. Ct. at 1374, the Supreme Court held that when the government seeks to introduce a testimonial hearsay statement in a criminal trial, the "reliability" test in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597, 608, 100 S. Ct. 2531, 2539 (1980), and Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 816, 111 L. Ed. 2d 638, 652-53, 110 S. Ct. 3139, 3147 (1990)"which our legislature codified in section 115-10 ( People v. Sharp, 355 Ill. App. 3d 786, 796, 825 N.E.2d 706, 713 (2005))"cannot serve as a surrogate for the defendant's sixth-amendment right to confront and cross-examine the declarant. Sections 115-10(a) and (b) provide:

  7. State v. Burr

    392 N.J. Super. 538 (App. Div. 2007)   Cited 36 times
    Rejecting claim by defendant that mother coerced victim into asserting assault allegation, as "there was no evidence [mother] suggested to [victim] that defendant sexually assaulted her"

    In this case, the child testified, which fell within the first prong of 803(c)(27), and she was available for and was in fact subjected to cross-examination, thereby satisfying Crawford. See People v. Sharp, 355 Ill.App.3d 786, 292 Ill.Dec. 118, 825 N.E.2d 706, 712 (2005); Elkins v. State, 918 So.2d 828, 832 (Miss.App. 2005), cert. denied 921 So.2d 1279 (Miss. 2006), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2865, 165 L.Ed.2d 898 (2006); Commonwealth v. Cesar, 911 A.2d 978, 982-83 (Pa.Super. 2006). This case does not present a situation where a child victim takes the stand but cannot remember sufficient details of the offense to provide meaningful testimony or is unable or refuses to respond to questions posed on cross-examination.

  8. People v. Atherton

    406 Ill. App. 3d 598 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 49 times
    Finding trial court's error in admitting other-crimes evidence as harmless, where the outcome of the trial would not have been different in the absence of the other-crimes evidence

    In other words, when a child sex abuse victim appears at trial and is subject to cross-examination, any prior statement of the victim being offered pursuant to section 115-10 of the Code is a nonevent. People v. Sharp, 355 Ill. App. 3d 786, 796 (2005). Here, the victim testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination.

  9. People v. Bryant

    391 Ill. App. 3d 1072 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 31 times
    Affirming the admission of the minor victim's hearsay statements to others pursuant to section 115-10 of the Code despite the minor's unwillingness or inability to testify on direct examination about specific sexual conduct the defendant forced the minor to perform

    1. The Constitutionality of Section 115-10 Citing Justice Cook's dissent in People v. Sharp, 355 Ill. App. 3d 786, 802-04, 825 N.E.2d 706, 718-20 (2005) (Cook, P.J., dissenting), defendant first argues that section 115-10 of the Code is unconstitutional, at least (apparently) as applied under the circumstances of this case. (We note that the supreme court ordered Sharp vacated in a nonprecedential order on January 28, 2009 ( People v. Sharp, 231 Ill. 2d 649, 899 N.E.2d 1076 (2009)), the same date — and with the same directions — that the supreme court vacated the decision in this case.)

  10. People v. Johnson

    363 Ill. App. 3d 1060 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 12 times
    In People v. Johnson, 363 Ill.App.3d 1060, 300 Ill.Dec. 756, 845 N.E.2d 645 (2005), the victim, a mentally disabled minor, was able to recall the alleged incidents of sexual acts that had taken place with the defendant, although he later retracted his story.

    In other words, when a child sex abuse victim appears at trial and is subject to cross-examination, any prior statement of the victim being offered pursuant to section 115-10 of the Code is a nonevent. People v. Sharp, 355 Ill. App. 3d 786, 796 (2005). Here, the victim testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination.