Illinois Supreme Court Adopts Comprehensive Rules of Evidence
Elizabeth F. Larsen
In November of 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court created a Special Committee on Illinois Evidence. The purpose of the Committee was to draft comprehensive rules of evidence for Illinois. Forty-four jurisdictions outside of Illinois have adopted complete codes of evidence based upon the Federal Rules of Evidence. Illinois’ rules of evidence, however, were contained in statutes, case law, and supreme court rules. This often made it difficult for judges and attorneys during trial, as time-consuming research would have to be conducted on any contested evidentiary issue. On September 27, 2010, the Supreme Court adopted the rules proposed by the Committee. The new Illinois Rules of Evidence became effective on January 1, 2011.
The new rules are based largely on the Federal Rules of Evidence, and they are not intended to supercede any prior evidentiary rules in Illinois. The Committee Commentary that prefaces the rules states that the Committee’s goal in drafting the rules was to avoid calling the validity of any existing statutes into question. Rather, the rules were clearly drafted to be consistent with current Illinois case law, statutes and Supreme Court Rules. However, there are some noteworthy items contained in the new rules.
Specifically, Rule 702, which codifies the test for admitting expert testimony, confirms that in Illinois, an expert witness who seeks to offer opinions based on new or novel scientific methodology or principle must show that the methodology is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific field. The Federal Rules of Evidence, in contrast, allow the introduction of new or novel scientific evidence where that evidence constitutes scientific knowledge, and where the evidence will assist the trier of fact in understanding or determining a fact at issue in the case.
Rule 803(3) allows statements regarding a declarant’s state of mind or physical condition into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule even where the declarant is unavailable as a witness. The prior law on this issue required that the declarant be unavailable to testify, and the court had to make a finding there was a reasonable probability that the statements were true before such statements were allowed into evidence. Illinois was previously the only jurisdiction that had these requirements.
Rule 613(a), which pertains to examining a witness about a prior statement, provides that the prior statement need not be shown to the witness before cross-examining him about it. This rule represents a change to the requirement that written statements be shown the to the witness before examination. The Committee found that this change was consistent with the evidentiary rules of forty-four other jurisdictions, as well as the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Rule 902(11) eliminates the need to call witnesses to lay a foundation that records fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The rule provides that these records are admissible as long as they are accompanied by a written certification that the record meets the requirements of a business record set forth in the rule. The certification should be attached to the records.
Significantly, Rule 101 provides that the rules must be followed unless a subsequent court decision finds that a particular rule is abrogated by the court’s ruling. As such, court decisions should be routinely monitored in order to confirm that none of the rules have been superceded. The Committee also indicated that where the rules of evidence and the supreme court rules are redundant, reference should be made solely to the relevant Illinois Rule of Evidence.
Ultimately, having a comprehensive code of evidence will increase the efficiency of rulings at trial, and will hopefully provide clear answers to attorneys on any evidentiary issues that arise both during and prior to trial. As stated by the Committee “having all of the basic rules of evidence in one easily accessible, authoritative source will substantially increase the efficiency of the trial process as well as expedite the resolution of cases on trial for the benefit fo the practicing bar, the judiciary, and the litigants involved.”