Judge sets trial date for Joliet woman on drug-induced homicide charge

Text messages between defendant and victim can be used as evidence, court rules

Kendall County Courthouse

YORKVILLE - A Kendall County judge has set a trial date for a Joliet woman facing charges of drug-induced homicide in connection to a 2017 heroin overdose.

The trial for Krystle Hoffman, of White Birch Lane in Joliet, will begin May 17 with jury selection to take place the week prior, Kendall County Chief Judge Robert Pilmer determined at a pre-trial hearing Tuesday, Jan. 12.

Hoffman appeared in court Tuesday accompanied by family and her lawyer, Joliet criminal attorney Jeff Tomczak. Also in court was the family of Lorna Haseltine, the Joliet woman authorities allege Hoffman sold a fatal dose of heroin to in August 2017. Authorities arrested Hoffman for Haseltine’s death in November 2018.

In the hearing, Tomczak, Hoffman’s attorney, argued for a motion he filed dismissing from court text messages between Haseltine and Hoffman reportedly arranging the sale of drugs. In a written response to Tomczak, the prosecution said the text messages are relevant in the case, arguing they show Hoffman and Haseltine’s “state of mind.” Yet Tomczak continued to object to the prosecution’s “state of mind” rationale, citing a myriad of case law in support.

Tomczak also filed motions objecting to the admission of alleged Western Union receipts between Hoffman and Haseltine for sale of the drugs.

Pilmer ultimately ruled against Tomczak’s motion to bar the text messages from being introduced as evidence. As for Tomczak’s objections to the Western Union receipts, Pilmer refused to rule on admissibility in the case, stating the trial was not yet in an evidentiary stage.

In response, Tomczak vowed to file secondary motions regarding “state of mind” and the text messages between Hoffman and Haseltine.

“I think this is the crux,” Tomczak said. “If they’re going to argue that my client followed through with those text messages from the deceased, then that’s exactly not what the case law allows.”