# People v. Stechly

> Illinois Supreme Court · April 19, 2007 · 225 Ill. 2d 246

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736627

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. ROBERT STECHLY, Appellant
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 19, 2007
- **Citations:** 225 Ill. 2d 246; 312 Ill. Dec. 268; 870 N.E.2d 333; 2007 Ill. LEXIS 1149
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Garman
- **Judges:** Freeman, Kilbride, Thomas, Garman
- **Cited by:** 195 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736627

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that the common law doctrine is “coextensive with” Federal Rule 804(b)(6), which is a hearsay exception that does not require a showing of reliability as a condition of admissibility
- holding that child's statements to registered nurse and social worker were testimonial both because they were mandated reporters and because they were cooperating with law enforcement
- stating that a mistrial based on the jury’s failure to agree on a verdict was illustrative of the closeness of the evidence
- holding that statement to mother was nontestimonial because mother "was in no way acting on behalf of law enforcement, attempting to gather evidence for a future prosecution"
- holding that statements to school nurse and social worker were testimonial; rejecting argument that only statements to law enforcement personnel are testimonial

## Opinion text

JUSTICE GARMAN, also dissenting:
I join in Chief Justice Thomas’ dissent with respect to his harmless error analysis. I do not, however, join in his analysis of the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing issue. In my view, the admissible evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s convictions. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to address any of the other issues raised in this appeal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736627. Public record. Not legal advice.