People v. Francik

Defendant was convicted of eavesdropping and was sentenced to 30 months of probation. On direct appeal, he argued that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the recording was unintelligible and there was no evidence that he knowingly and intentionally used the eavesdropping device and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to perfect the impeachment of the complaining witness. The appellate court affirmed, explaining that it disagreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the recording was unintelligible because it contained discernible excerpts and that entire statements and not just isolated words could be understood. The appellate court further held that the quality of a recording is legally irrelevant to guilt under the statute. The appellate court also found that defendant could not establish prejudice in his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. (BIRKETT and MULLEN, concurring)