Bliefnick appeal denied; appellate court says trial evidence ‘weighs overwhelmingly in favor of guilt’

QUINCY – The Appellate Court of Illinois Fourth District has denied the appeal of Tim Bliefnick, the Quincy man convicted of murdering his estranged wife in Feb. 2023.

The court affirmed the conviction and three life sentences he received in August 2023. He remains in the Menard Correctional Center.

Bliefnick’s attorneys based their argument that he was denied a fair trial because Judge Robert Adrian erroneously admitted hearsay statements made by Becky under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, a conflict of interest existed between Adrian and Assistant State’s Attorney Josh Jones in his case, and Jones made representations to the jury of matters that were not in evidence during closing argument.

Bliefnick argued that his attorney, Casey Schnack, provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the trial court ordering his wife’s attorneys, Dennis Woodworth and Gerald Timmerwilke, to share privileged case files with the Quincy Police Department before trial and allowing the attorneys to testify at trial to private, privileged conversations with Becky. 

Bliefnick contended that because the state failed to present any evidence or arguments that his wife waived her attorney-client privilege and the privilege survives her death, any evidence presented contravening that privilege was inadmissible and Schnack should have objected to its usage.

“We disagree,” Appellate Court Justice Robert Steigmann wrote. “Any objection based on Becky’s attorney-client privilege would have been fruitless because Bliefnick lacked standing to assert Becky’s evidentiary privilege and privileged information related to the prosecution for her murder was impliedly waived or excepted from the usual protections of attorney-client privilege. Accordingly, we conclude that (Schnack) did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel.”

Steigmann also wrote, “(Bliefnick’s) success in silencing Becky should not be rewarded by his use of her own privilege to frustrate the truth-seeking process looking into her death. It is true that Becky may have had specific information she preferred to remain confidential under ordinary circumstances, but a murder trial is not an ordinary circumstance.”

Bliefnick’s attorneys also argued that Adrian erroneously allowed the state to call at least half a dozen witnesses to testify about irrelevant and inadmissible statements purportedly made by Becky, introduced to demonstrate her state of mind towards (Bliefnick) under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine. Bliefnick’s attorneys challenged the court’s finding that the hearsay evidence was relevant — a prerequisite for the admission of hearsay statements.

Steigmann’s opinion listed 13 statements considered as “hearsay” during the trial.

“Bliefnick contends that all these statements were irrelevant and erroneously admitted as evidence of Becky’s ‘state of mind,’” he wrote. “The state counters that many of these statements were admissible for purposes other than these cited by the trial court at the pretrial hearing and any improperly admitted statements were harmless error.

“We agree with the state.”

Steigmann wrote that not all of the statements at issue were admitted into evidence solely for the purpose of showing Becky’s state of mind.

“(Adrian) found that Becky’s statements about wanting her handgun returned to her by (Bliefnick) were relevant to his opportunity to commit the crime because that gun, which she believed was in his possession, could have been the murder weapon,” he wrote. “Regarding her statements that the only way (Bliefnick) could ensure that the boys chose him over her was to eliminate her as an option and other custody-related statements, the court found that they were relevant to (Bliefnick’s) motive.”

Steigmann wrote the same could not be said for the statements regarding Becky’s fear of defendant that were admitted for the purpose of showing her state of mind.

“(Bliefnick) was correct that Becky’s state of mind was not relevant regarding any issue in this case,” he wrote. “As we discussed, some of Becky’s statements were relevant (and thus admissible), but the state should not have offered into evidence statements whose only purpose was to reveal Becky’s state of mind, and (Adrian) erred by overruling defendant’s objections to those statements.”

However, Steigmann said while Adrian committed evidentiary errors, the Appellate Court concluded that any error was harmless because “the trial evidence weighs overwhelmingly in favor of (Bliefnick’s) guilt.”

The Appellate Court disagreed with Bliefnick’s contention that he was denied the right to a fair trial when the trial court allowed Jones to remain as the prosecutor in this case while his potentially adverse testimony against Adrian was pending in a contemporaneous matter before the JIB.

The Appellate Court also disagreed with Bliefnick’s contention that Adrian erred by denying his motion for a new trial based on his allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.

You can read the entire decision below.