plastic — no phone-no dad signed false statement to murders (Tonto) Aaron.” “Sign false statements to murder, Tonto on statements is code word Aaron.” On the door of the room was written “Aaron lied.” Self-serving statements by an accused are inadmissible hearsay. (People v. Tenny (1991), 224 Ill. App. 3d 53, 62; see also People v. Visnack (1985), 135 Ill. App. 3d 113, 127; People v. Barnes (1982), 107 Ill. App. 3d 262, 267; but see People v. Berry (1988), 172 Ill. App. 3d 256, 262.) Such statements are considered inadmissible hearsay because their relevance depends upon the truth of the matter asserted or the declarant’s belief in the truth or falsity of the matter asserted. (People v. Young (1990), 206 Ill. App. 3d 789, 811; see also People v. Vanda (1982), 111 Ill. App. 3d 551, 558 (<HOLDING>).) In this case, defendant’s writings clearly
recognizing distinction made in maynard that one accomplices outofcourt statement may corroborate the incourt testimony of another accomplice but outofcourt testimony of a testifying accomplice cannot be used to corroborate his own testimony holding that testimony of childs mother during temporarycustody probablecause bearing regarding defendant fathers shaking of child where defendant proceeded without counsel was admissible under hearsay exception for former testimony because the defendants motive to develop the testimony in the chancery case was very similar to his motive in the criminal case ie to avoid any implications of child abuse holding that testimony of childs mother during temporarycustody probablecause hearing respecting defendant fathers shaking of child where defendant proceeded without counsel was admissible under hearsay exception for former testimony because the defendants motive to develop the testimony in the chancery case was very similar to his motive in the criminal case ie to avoid any implications of child abuse holding that it was error not to allow juvenile to present testimony concerning alleged prejudice and bias of two of the states key witnesses the error was not harmless because it went to possible motive the witnesses may have had to exaggerate or even completely fabricate them testimony holding testimony regarding outofcourt statements made by a defendant after commission of a crime is incompetent because the defendant had a motive to fabricate favorable testimony relating to innocence