personal knowledge requirement in Illinois

2021App. 3d 971, 973 , 544 N.E.2d 1273, 1274 (1989)). “[T]o satisfy the personal-knowledge requirement of the statute, ‘the witness must have observed, and not merely heard, the subject matter underlying the statement.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Hastings, 161 Ill.

2021App. 3d 971, 973 , 544 N.E.2d 1273, 1274 (1989)). “[T]o satisfy the personal-knowledge requirement of the statute, ‘the witness must have observed, and not merely heard, the subject matter underlying the statement.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Hastings, 161 Ill.

2015The appellate court rejected the State’s argument, finding that “[f]or a witness’s out-of-court statement to satisfy the personal knowledge requirement, the witness must have actually seen the events that form the subject matter of the statement.” 2013 IL App (1st) 111914, ¶ 18 (citing People v. McCarter, 385 Ill.

2015The appellate court rejected the State’s argument, finding that “[f]or a witness’s out-of-court statement to satisfy the personal knowledge requirement, the witness must have actually seen the events that form the subject matter of the statement.” 2013 IL App (1st) 111914, ¶ 18 (citing People v. McCarter, 385 Ill.

2020(And again, he would have to lay foundation for those documents.) - 19 - ¶ 145 The long and short is this: the personal-knowledge requirement of Rule 191(a) is satisfied if “ ‘it appears that the affidavit is based upon the personal knowledge of the affiant and there is a reasonable inference that the affiant could competently testify to its contents at trial.’ ” Zamora v. Lewis, 2019 IL App (1st) 181642, ¶ 67 (quoting Kugler v. Southmark Realty Partners III, 309 Ill.

2009However, “[i]f, from the document as a whole, it appears that the affidavit is based upon the personal knowledge of the affiant and there is a reasonable inference that the affiant could competently testify to its contents at trial, Rule 191 is satisfied.” Kugler v. Southmark Realty Partners III, 309 Ill.

2005App. 3d 278, 290 (1993); People v. Saunders, 220 Ill.

2005App. 3d 278, 290 (1993); People v. Saunders , 220 Ill.

2021App. 3d 971, 973 , 544 N.E.2d 1273, 1274 (1989)). “[T]o satisfy the personal-knowledge requirement of the statute, ‘the witness must have observed, and not merely heard, the subject matter underlying the statement.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Hastings, 161 Ill.

2000In other words, to satisfy the personal-knowledge requirement of the statute, “the witness must have observed, and not merely have heard, the subject matter underlying the statement.” People v. Hastings, 161 Ill.

2016People v. Harvey, 366 Ill.

2016However, the court concluded that the error was harmless because “the jury was permitted to consider substantively virtually identical evidence contained in the recanting witnesses’ grand jury testimonies.” Harvey, 366 Ill.

2015See Wilson, 2012 IL App (1st) 101038, ¶¶ 39-40 . -9- ¶ 33 Given the quarter of a century that the appellate court has repeatedly and consistently interpreted the statute as noted above, it seems clear that the statute has a settled meaning and it would not be appropriate for us to change it (see Young, 2011 IL 111886, ¶ 16 ), especially in light of the State’s less than persuasive argument for a contrary interpretation. 1 We note, however, that if the legislature disagrees with interpretation placed on section 115-10.1(c)(2) by the courts, it should of course feel free to amend the statute. ¶

2015See Wilson, 2012 IL App (1st) 101038, ¶¶ 39-40 . ¶ 33 Given the quarter of a century that the appellate court has repeatedly and consistently interpreted the statute as noted above, it seems clear that the statute has a settled meaning and it would not be appropriate for us to change it (see Young, 2011 IL 111886, ¶ 16 ), especially in light of the State’s less than persuasive argument for a contrary interpretation. 1 We note, however, that if the legislature disagrees with the interpretation placed on section 115-10.1(c)(2) by the courts, it should of course feel free to amend the statute. ¶

2015The appellate court rejected the State’s argument, finding that “[f]or a witness’s out-of-court statement to satisfy the personal knowledge requirement, the witness must have actually seen the events that form the subject matter of the statement.” 2013 IL App (1st) 111914, ¶ 18 (citing People v. McCarter, 385 Ill.

2015The appellate court rejected the State’s argument, finding that “[f]or a witness’s out-of-court statement to satisfy the personal knowledge requirement, the witness must have actually seen the events that form the subject matter of the statement.” 2013 IL App (1st) 111914, ¶ 18 (citing People v. McCarter, 385 Ill.

2015See Wilson, 2012 IL App (1st) 101038, ¶¶ 39-40 . -9- ¶ 33 Given the quarter of a century that the appellate court has repeatedly and consistently interpreted the statute as noted above, it seems clear that the statute has a settled meaning and it would not be appropriate for us to change it (see Young, 2011 IL 111886, ¶ 16 ), especially in light of the State’s less than persuasive argument for a contrary interpretation. 1 We note, however, that if the legislature disagrees with interpretation placed on section 115-10.1(c)(2) by the courts, it should of course feel free to amend the statute. ¶

2015See Wilson, 2012 IL App (1st) 101038, ¶¶ 39-40 . ¶ 33 Given the quarter of a century that the appellate court has repeatedly and consistently interpreted the statute as noted above, it seems clear that the statute has a settled meaning and it would not be appropriate for us to change it (see Young, 2011 IL 111886, ¶ 16 ), especially in light of the State’s less than persuasive argument for a contrary interpretation. 1 We note, however, that if the legislature disagrees with the interpretation placed on section 115-10.1(c)(2) by the courts, it should of course feel free to amend the statute. ¶

2012See People v. Hubbard, 276 Ill.App.3d 98, 105 , 212 Ill.

2012See People v. Hubbard, 276 Ill.App.3d 98, 105 , 212 Ill.

2005App. 3d 695, 700 (1996) (holding that the personal-knowledge requirement is not satisfied when the witness merely testifies as to what another claims to have done); People v. Williams, 264 Ill.

2005App. 3d 695, 700 (1996) (holding that the personal-knowledge requirement is not satisfied when the witness merely testifies as to what another claims to have done); People v. Williams , 264 Ill.

2025See Selby v. O’Dea, 2020 IL App (1st) 181951, ¶ 148 (“The personal-knowledge requirement forces affiants only to testify about facts within their personal knowledge, and if that knowledge was gleaned from an external source ***, the affiant must say so.

2022Plaintiff asserts that the personal knowledge requirement forces affiants to only testify to facts that they have personal knowledge of, otherwise they must provide the external source from where they received the information, citing Selby v. O’Dea, 2020 IL App (1st) 181951 , ¶148 as support.

2012Rev. 1565 (1977))); accord People v. Wilson, 302 Ill.App.3d 499, 507-08 , 236 Ill.Dec. 152 , 706 N.E.2d 1026 (1998) ("In the legislative debate, lawmakers acknowledged that the [section 115-10.1] had its genesis in that article."). ¶ 40 Second, the State's reading of the statute would keep the personal knowledge requirement from doing what it was designed to do: ensure that the out-of-court statements are trustworthy.

2012Rev. 1565 (1977))); accord People v. Wilson, 302 Ill.App.3d 499, 507-08 , 236 Ill.Dec. 152 , 706 N.E.2d 1026 (1998) ("In the legislative debate, lawmakers acknowledged that the [section 115-10.1] had its genesis in that article."). ¶ 40 Second, the State's reading of the statute would keep the personal knowledge requirement from doing what it was designed to do: ensure that the out-of-court statements are trustworthy.

2022“It does not violate the personal knowledge rule to allow witnesses to testify to their observations so long as they do not provide their own interpretation of those observations.” See People v. Richardson, 2013 IL App (2d) 120119, ¶ 10 (a witness’ opinion may be admitted if the opinion is based on the witness’ personal observations, is one that a person is generally capable of making, is helpful to a clear understanding of an issue at hand and does not provide a legal conclusion).

2020(And again, he would have to lay foundation for those documents.) - 19 - ¶ 145 The long and short is this: the personal-knowledge requirement of Rule 191(a) is satisfied if “ ‘it appears that the affidavit is based upon the personal knowledge of the affiant and there is a reasonable inference that the affiant could competently testify to its contents at trial.’ ” Zamora v. Lewis, 2019 IL App (1st) 181642, ¶ 67 (quoting Kugler v. Southmark Realty Partners III, 309 Ill.

2011Supra ¶ 55, 352 Ill.Dec. at 650, 954 N.E.2d at 733 (trial counsel "rendered deficient representation by failing to object to the portions of Ms. Johnson's prior inconsistent statement that were not based on her personal knowledge").

2011Supra ¶ 55, 352 Ill.Dec. at 650, 954 N.E.2d at 733 (trial counsel "rendered deficient representation by failing to object to the portions of Ms. Johnson's prior inconsistent statement that were not based on her personal knowledge").