The husband was convicted of domestic battery based on insulting or provoking physical contact against his wife. He appealed.
He argued #1 that the State did not prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. None of the State’s witnesses were present during the alleged incident. And, the defendant had testified to a different version of events.
It is true that the defendant was the only eyewitness to testify. But, his testimony was not the only evidence the jury had to consider. The jury heard from the wife on the 911 recording. She had clearly stated, “My husband is very upset and he grabbed me by the neck.”
Two officers testified that the defendant admitted to grabbing their wife’s arm in anger. He said he had put his hands around her throat. He said he had pushed her against the wall.
Given this evidence, the jury could have considered a) the content of the 911 recording. b) the photograph of the wife’s neck. c) credited the testimony of the officers over that of defendant. d) and found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of knowingly making insulting or provoking contact with their wife.
2. Husband argues that the trial court erred in admitting the recording of a 911 telephone call. The State did not present a witness who could identify the caller’s voice
Audio recordings that are otherwise competent are admissible when a proper foundation. It must assure the court of the recording’s reliability and authenticity. There must be an identification of voices.
The State responds that wife was identified as the caller through circumstantial evidence. The caller provided information that matched the police officers’ observations. The wife was the only adult female at the scene when the police arrived a few minutes after the call was made.
People v. Camacho, 2018 IL App (2d) 160350 (September 28, 2018)
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
