No. 2-- 08--0120 Fil ed: 12-9-09

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ In re GR EGO RY G., a M i nor ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ) o f Ka ne Co un t y. ) ) No. 07-- JD--119 ) (The Peo ple of the Stat e of Ill in ois, ) Ho no r ab le Peti tion er-A ppel l ee, v . Gregory

G., ) Wiley W. E dmo ndso n, Res ponde nt-A ppel l an t). ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEO' MA

LL EY de l i v ered th e op i ni on of th e c our t: Re sp on den

t, Gregory G., was adj udic ated deli nquen t upo n a f

in din g that he c omm

itted a ba ttery by hi ttin g Ja mes B l omb erg i

n the head w

i th a g l ass bottl e (7 20 ILC S 5/12- -3(a) (2) (West 2006) ). Defend ant was sent ence d t o nine mont hs' pr oba t ion. On ap pea l, de fendant ar gue s t hat t he S t at e f aile d t o pr o ve him g ui lt y be yo nd a r ea so na ble do ub t . We ag r ee an d r ev er se ac co r di ng ly. The tria l evi den ce showe d the

f oll owi ng. J am es B l omb ergwas worki

ng as a s ecuri

ty g uard at an apartme

nt complex wh

en a f igh t broke out between

t wo wo men, o ne o f who m was r esp ond ent 's
m other. The sce ne wa s cha ot ic and t her e we re ove r 1 00 p eo ple su rr ou nding t he fight . As Blomb erg was breaki

ng up the f

igh t, he "got sm

acke d i nth e h ead w i th th e b eer b ottle. " A

cc ordi n g to Bl ombe rg, t he bo t t le w as no t t hr o wn ; he wa s hit in t he ba ck o f t he he ad wit h t he bo t t le, an d t he bo t t le broke when

it hi t his head. He di

d not see who hi

t him. When

he t ur ned a ro und two o r three mi nutes l ater, he sa w r esp ond ent st anding 1 0 feet awa y and ho ldingthe head o f a b r o ke n be er bo t t le in h isNo. 2-- 08--0120

-2-

han d. He d id no t see anyone ot her t han r esp ond ent wit h a bo t t le in h is ha nd . Blo mbe r g d id not suff er any in juri es f rom the hi

t t o his head. Off ic er Mi chae l S t ra ub, a po lice officer wit h t he Village o f Car pent er svill e, ar rived at t he sce ne as the f

igh t was taking pl

ace. He obs erv

ed a m i ni m um of 100 people congregated at the scene. Acco rd ing t o S t ra ub, "[i]t wasj us t utter ch aos . Bottl

esbe i ng thr own , roc ksbe i

ng thr own ." " You arewatchi

ng so y ou don't get hit by

bott le s yoursel

f an d rocks." St raub app ro ache d Blo mberg , w ho tol d h i m th at he had just be en h it over the hea

d with a bott le . Str aub l

ooked aro und an

d saw re spo ndent ho ldin g t he t o p h alf of a cl ear glass b ot tle in

hi s hand. Straub did not o bserve any one else with a bott le in han d at that t im

e. Several wi tn es se s te stif

ie d for the def

ense, n am el y, responden

t's m ot her, aunt, and two cousins, all of

wh om were pres en

t f ort he figh t . Se ve r al o f t he de fen se wit ne ss es o bse rve d p eo ple t hro wing bot t les at t hem, a nd t wo of t he witne sses sa wr es po nd en t ca t ch o ne o f t he bo t t les wit h his hand. No ne of the def

ense wi tnesses s aw Blombe

rg get hit. Responden

t's m ot her testif

ie d that she was st anding be t wee n re spo ndent and B lomber g du ring t he ent ire fight and that i t was "im possible " f orr es po nd en t t o ha ve hit Blomb erg. Two of the def en se wi tnes ses he ard Blombe rg say that he was hi t o nl y a fter respondent was al

ready a rrested. The tri al cou rt f oun d re sp ond en t gui l ty of battery. The trial

cour t's reaso ni

ng was as fol

lows: "We ll, Mr. Blo mbe r g s ays he go t hit fr o m be hind by a b o t t le. He did n't se e it . He felt it . The b ottle b roke. Mr. Blomber g wo uld have no r eas on t o mak e t his up. The re is no sho wing of any

in terest o r bias that he has

to wards the

m i nor res pon dent or hi s f am il y. *** My concl usi on is that t he State has proven b ey ond a rea sonable do ubt that Mr. Blomb erggot [h]i

t in the b ack of

the h ead b y a b ottle. M

r. Bl omb ergfreel

y a dmi tt ed t hat heNo. 2-- 08--0120

-3-

didn't se e w ho hit him w it h t he bo t t le, bu t he t es t ifie d he tur ne d a nd he sa w the m i nor respondent holdin

g the head of

a broken be er bott le . No ne of the def

ense wi tnessessai

d they saw Mr. Bl omb ergget hi

t, whi ch means if Mr. Blomber g indee d wa s hit- -a nd I believe beyo nd a r eas ona ble do ubt that he was--ei ther they di dn ' t se e w h at h appen ed or th ey di d s ee i t an d di dn ' t tel l th e tr uth ab out i t. Jam es Blombe

rg and Of fi cer Straub b oth

sa w th e m i n or re sp on den

t wi th the he ad of a bro ken be er bot t le in his hand. T he minor re spo nd en t's m other a l so s aw

the m i nor re spo ndent holdi

ng a b ot tle. She sa

id i t was thrown by

someb ody i

n the m ob and th at the m i nor re spo ndent cau ght it. If he c aug ht it, why wa s it br o ke n? B ec au se we kn o w a bo t t le was broken wh

en i t hit Mr. Blombe

rg. SavoraBro ok s, t he minor re spo ndent 's au nt , a lso s ays she saw t he minor r esp ond ent catch a bott le that was thr o wn . On ce ag ain , if t ha t is w ha t she sa w, wh y wa s t he bo t t le broke n w hen ob serv

ed b y Mr. Bl omb erg an

d the off i cer? It is in teresting that Mahay

a Ham pt on w as w ith t he minor re spo ndent just like t he other wi tnes ses the w hole ti me. She nev er sa

w hi m catch a b ottle or thr

ow a b ottle." Defend ant ar gue s o n app eal t hat t he evide nce w as insufficient t o e st ablish his guilt be yond a r ea so na ble doubt . The critical in quiry on review i s wh eth er

th e r ec o r d e vid en ce co uld r ea so na bly supp ort a fi

ndi ng of gui lt bey ond a reas onab l e doubt. Ja ck so n v. Vir gin ia , 443 U. S. 3 07, 3 18, 6 1 L. Ed. 2d 560, 573, 99 S. Ct . 2781, 278 8-8 9 (1 979 ); I n r e M alc o lm H. , 373 Ill . App. 3d 891, 893 (2007) (t he consti

tutiona l saf eg ua rd of proof be y ond a re as ona bl e doubt appl

i esto the ad j udi ca tory stageof juv en ile delinque ncy pr oc eed ings). "[T ]he re levant question is whether, af ter viewi ng the ev ide nce in t he ligh t mo st fav o r ab le to the prose cution, any rational trier of f act could hav

e found the e ssen

tialNo. 2-- 08--0120

-4-

el em en ts of t he crim

e bey ond a reaso nabl

e doubt ." (Em

phasi s i n ori gi na l .) Jack son, 443 U.S. at 319, 61 L. E d. 2 d a

t 573 , 99 S. C t. at 2 789 ; s eealso In re W.C . , 16 7 I ll. 2 d 3 07 , 33 6 ( 19 95 ) ( sa me stan dard of revi ew ap pli ed to del

i nqu ency procee di ngs). "Thi s standard appl

ie s whether the ev

ide nce was direct or circumstantial." People v . Natal , 3 68 I ll. App. 3d 2 62, 268 (2 006 ). The trier of f act is re spo nsible for making credibi li ty determin

ations, weighing t he wit nesse s' t est imony, and dec iding what inferenc es may be re aso nably draw n fro m the evi den ce. People v. Ross , 229 Ill . 2d 255, 272 (2008 ). On revi

ew, "[a] r ev iew ing co ur t mus t allo w a ll re as o na ble i nf ere nc esf rom the rec ord i n f av or of the pro secution." People v . Cunni ngha m , 212 Ill . 2d 274, 280 (2004). "However, a rev ie wing courtmay not allow unreasonable i

nf erences." Cunn

in gham, 212 Ill . 2d at 280. That the trier of f act accepted certain testi

mony or made certain

in feren ces bas ed on the evi

dence do es no t gua ra nt ee t he reasonablenes s of i

ts dec i sion. Ross , 229 I ll . 2d at 272. "A co nvic t io n w ill be r ever sed wher e t he evi dence is so unreasonab le , im

probable, or unsatisf

actory that there remains

a reason ab l e doubt of defendan t's guil t. " Ross , 229 Ill . 2d at 272. Resp ond ent was f

ound guil ty of b atter y. To sustain

that determin

ation, the evi

dence m us t sh owthat respondent in

tentional ly or knowingl

y w ithoutle gal

jus tif ic ation an d by any me ans m ade phy si cal contact of

an i n su l ti n g or prov oki n g n atu rewi th another person. 720 ILCS 5/12--3(a)(2) (West 200 6); Malcolm

H. , 373 Ill . App. 3d at 894. Resp ond ent as se

rtsth at Peo ple v. Ho usby , 84 Il l . 2d 415 (1981 ), gove

rns our anal y si s. In Ho usby , o ur su pr eme co ur t r ev iew ed t he co ns t it ut io na lit y o f t he infe r en ce t ha t an ind ividua l in possession of recentl

y s to le n property comm

itted a bur glary . Ho usby , 84 Ill . 2dat 419. Th e court ruled t hat an infe re nce o f gu ilt ma y be d ra wn fr om the proven f act, i.e. , t he po ss es sio n o f r ec en t ly stolen pr o pe rt y, if: (1) the

re wasa ra

ti ona l con ne cti on be twe en the de f en da nt' s rec en t pos se ss i on ofNo. 2-- 08--0120

-5-

stolen pr operty an d h i s p ar ti ci pa ti on i n th e b urgl ar y ; (2 ) the def

en da n t' s g ui l t o f t he bur glary more like ly tha n n ot f l owe d f rom hi s rec en t, un ex pl ai ne d, a nd excl us i ve pos se ss i on

of the proceeds; and (3) there was corrobor ating e

vi dence of the de f endan t's g uil t. Ho usby , 84 Ill . 2d at 424. Ot herwi se, wh eret he "infere nce s t ands unsu ppo rt ed by co rr obo ra t ingci rcu m sta nc es , th e l

ea p f rom the proved fact to the presum

ed ele ment mus t sa t isfy

the hi gher s tan da rd- -proof be y ond a re as ona bl e doubt--f or there is nothing else on which to rest t he f

act fin der's verdict of guil

t. " Ho usby , 84 Ill . 2d at 421. It is not cle ar whether Ho usby applie s he

re. On the one ha nd , th e supr

em e c ourt' s dec i si

on in W.C. su

gg ests that Ho usby

do es a pply. I n W.C. , th e c ourt w asas ke d to revi ew the su f f i ci en cy of t he ev i den ce to support t he responden t's adj udic ation of m

urderba sed

on ac coun

tabi l i ty. W.C. , 167 Ill . 2d at 336, 339. The court questioned whether i t was reasonabl

e for the trial

court to in

fer that t he resp on de n t shared a com mon purpose wi

th the prin

ci pal off ender based on the ci

rcumstances sur ro unding t he co mmi

ssio n of t he ac t . T he co ur t pr oc eed ed t o a nalyze t he evide nce a nd t he in feren ces un der the th

re e- pa rt Hous by test, and it ulti ma tely found that there was a rati onal co nnect ion bet wee n t he f

acts proved

an d th e f acts in ferred, that the ulti

ma te facts m ore li kel y tha n not fl owed fro m the basi

c facts, an d that the i

nf ere nc e w assu

ppor ted by corr obor ati ng ev i denc e of gui l t. W.C. , 167 Ill . 2d at 339. Thus, t he evide nce a nd t he r eas ona ble inferenc es su ppo rt ed t he resp onde nt' s ad j udication. W.C. , 167 Ill . 2d at 339. But t he su pr eme co ur t 's s ubs eq ue nt ca se s o f Pe o ple v. Williams , 193 Ill. 2d 306 (2 000 ), and Pe o ple v. Perez , 189 Ill . 2d25 4 ( 20 00 ), s ug ge st th at Ho usby do es no t app ly here. In bo t h cas es, t he courtconsidered a si

mi la r iss ue to t hat pr ese nt ed in W.C. , nam el y, wh ether the Stat e's ev

ide nce was su fficie nt t o pr o ve t he de fen da nt leg ally a cc o un t ab le f or a n other ' s cri

m i n al con duct. See Williams , 193 Il l. 2d a t 3 37; Perez , 18 9 I ll. 2 d a t 26 5. T hu s, bo t h c as es co nsid er ed infe r en ce s in a simil a rNo. 2-- 08--0120

-6-

co nt ext to W.C. In fac t , bo t h Williams and Perez ci te W.C. for t he go ve rnin g l aw o n a cc o un t ab ilit y. See Williams , 193 Ill. 2d a t 3 38- 39; Perez , 189 Ill . 2d at 26 7. Williams and Perez , howe ve r, di d n ot ap ply Ho usby

t o a nalyze t he infere nces cr eat ed by t he evide nce. Inst ead , t he courtapp lied only t he t ra dit ional st anda rd go ver ning sufficiency-o f-t he- evidenc e claims, t hat is, whe t her any rational trier of f ac t coul d have f

oun d the e ss en

ti al el em en ts of the cri me b ey ond a reas onabl e doubt. Williams , 193 Ill. 2d a t 3 38; Perez , 189 Ill . 2d at 265-66. The abo ve c as es ap pe ar t o cr ea t e a n irr ec o ncila ble s plit o f a uth ori ty . Re sp o nd en t simp ly assum es that Ho usby

applie s to t hi s case. Hedoe s n ot ac kn owl edgethe sp l i t, m uc h l es s s ugg es t how to resol ve i t. "I t is w ell s et t led t ha t '[ a] r ev iew ing co ur t is e nt it led t o ha ve iss ue s c lea r ly de f i n ed wi th per t inent authority ci

ted and cohesi

ve argum ents presented ([210 Ill . 2d R. 341 (h )(7 )]), an d i t i s n ot a re po sito ry into which a n appellan t may f oist t he burden of argumen t and researc h.' " Sten

strom Petro le um Services Group, Inc. v. Mesch , 375 Ill . Ap p. 3d 10 77, 109 8-99 (2 007), quot in g Ober t v. Sa ville , 253 Ill . App. 3d 677, 682 (1993). Respondent has f ai le d to me et his

burden i n thi s regard. In any even t, we need not resolve the sp l i t of aut hor ity, be cau se a pplicat ion o f eithe r t he Ho usby standard ( Ho usby , 84 Ill . 2d at 424) o r the traditional standard alone ( Jack son, 443 U.S. at 319, 61 L . E d. 2d a t 573 , 9 9 S . C t . a t 278 9) leads inexor ably to t he sam e concl usi on, i.e. , t he St at e's ev i den ce wa s i n suf f i ci en t to pr ov e res pon den t' s g ui l t b ey on d a re as on ab l e doub

t. Fi rs t, we a pply t he t ra dit ional st anda rd . V iewed in the light most favo ra ble to t he pr os ecu t ion, t he trial evi dence es tabli shed that (1) Bl ombe

rg was hi t in the b ack of the head wi th a bott le that was being held, not t hro wn; ( 2) t he bo t t le broke; (3) there were 100 people surroundi ng Bl ombe rg; (4) ot her members o f the crowd possessed bottles; an d (5) two mi

nutes after bei

ng hi t, Blomb erg saw respondent standi

ng 10 f eet away, h

oldi ng a b roken bott le .No. 2-- 08--0120

-7-

Resp ond ent questions wh

ether t he bott le actuall y b roke and argues that it was m ore li kel y tha t Blomb ergwa s hit by a t hr o wn bo t t le. T he t r ial c o ur t co nsid er ed t he se ar gu men t s a nd ult imat ely rejected t hem upo n finding tha t Blomber g's t es t imo ny w as cr ed ible. A r at io na l t r ier o f fac t co uld
r ea so na bly concl

ude that Blom

berg could tel

l that the bottle was h

el d when it hi t him and co ul d determ ineth at th

e b ottle b roke, pr es

um ab l y b as ed on such f actorsas th e f orc e of th e i m pact, th e so und it mad e w he n it mad e c o nt ac t wit h his he ad , an d t he pr es en ce o f gla ss falling ar o un d h im. Al thoughBlo mbe r g d id

not t estif y to these detail

s surroundi

ng the h it to his h ead, the trial

court was awar e o f t hese def

ic i encies in his t est imony and ult imately believed his t est imony desp ite t he deficiencies . We see no r eas on t o u pse t t hat det er minatio n. But because no e vidence dire ct ly pro ved t hat re spo ndent hit Blo mberg in the he ad w ith t he bo t t le he wa s ho ldin g, t he r es o lut io n o f r es po nd en t 's g uilt or inn ocence depen

ded on whether i

t was r ea so na ble to i

n f er f rom th es e f acts t hat it w as r esp ond ent , a nd not one of t he o t her 99 p eo ple in t he crowd, who hi

t Bl omb erg. See In r e Gino W. , 354 Ill . App. 3d 775, 777 (2005) (t he f act fi nder must assess t he cr edibility of t he wit nesse s, r eso lveconfl icts in the evi dence, an d dec i de wh at r ea so na ble i nf eren ces to draw f rom th e ev i den ce). Ci rcumstantial

evi dence i s th e p roof of certain f acts and ci

rcumstances f

rom whi ch the trier of fact m ay in fer other connected f

acts that usual

ly and reasonably

fol low f rom hum an ex perien ce. Pe o ple v. Grathl er , 36 8 I ll. A pp . 3d 80 2, 80 8 ( 20 06 ) . T he so le li mi tat ion on the use of ci

rcumstantial evi dence is that the

i nf eren ces drawn f rom th e ev i den ce m ust b e rea sona

bl e. Grathler , 368 Ill . App. 3d at 808. "C irc ums t an t ial e vid en ce is s uffic ien t t o su st ain a co nvictio n if i t sat isfies pro of be yond a re as ona bl e doubt of

the el em en ts of t he crim e charged." People v . Gomez , 215 Ill . App. 3d 208, 216 (1991 ). It is not nece ssar y that eac h link in the cha in of circ umst ance s be p ro ved be yond aNo. 2-- 08--0120

-8-

r ea so na ble doubt. Gomez , 2 15 I ll. App. 3d a t 216 . R at her , it is sufficient if all the ci rcumstantial evi dence taken toget her sati sf

ie s t he t rier of fac t beyond a r eas ona ble do ubt of th e def en da n t' s g ui l t. Gomez , 215 Ill . App. 3d at 216. T he cr ux o f r es po nd en t 's a r gu men t is t ha t it was unreas onabl e to inf er that he hi t Bl omb erg so lely f rom the fac t t hat he possess ed

a broken be er bott le . We agree. The State directl y proved that Blombe rg wa s h

i t b y a b ottle a

n d th at res pon den t pos se ss ed

a b roken b ottle. Bu

t o t he r s a ls o possessed bott le s durin

g the me le e. And, sign

if ican tly, there was a

two- mi nute la pse between

when Blomb ergwas hi

t and when

he turned around, whi

ch mak es t he infe r en ce o f r es po nd en t 's g uilt even more tenuous. Lastly

, respondent was standi

ng 10 f eet away wh en Blo mbe r g o bse rve d h im, w hile t he other 99peopl

e wer e also standi

ng i n the sam e vi ci ni ty. The ev

ide nce h ere rais es a suspi

ci on that res pon dent wasthe

cul pri t i n th e b attery of Bl om be rg, bu t i t i s n ot sufficient ly conclus iveand does not produce a reasonable and m oral certain

ty that respondent, and not one o f t he o t he r99 pe o ple in volv ed in the fi ght, comm

ittedthe cri

me. See I n r e W insh ip , 397 U.S. 358, 364, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368, 375, 90 S. C t. 1068, 10 72 (19 70) (standard of proof bey

ond a reasonabl

e doubt im

pressesupo n t he factf in der the need to reach

a sub j ec ti ve sta te of ne ar c erti tude of the guilt o f the ac cuse d); Pe o ple
v. Ny berg , 275 Ill . App. 3d 570, 579 (1995) (a conviction based up o n c ir cum stantial evi dence requires proof of a c on cl us i v e n atu reth at prod

uc es a rea son ab l e a n d m oral certai n ty t hat defend ant and no o ne els e c o mm i

tted th e c ri me);se e al so People v . Kostatinovich , 98 Ill . App. 3d 611, 614 (1981) (where no one actually witne ssed the thef

t from a store an d defen

dant was one of s everal pat ro ns in the store, the ci

rcumstances rais ed little m ore t han a suspi ci on that defenda

nt was i nvol ved in t he crim e; conv iction reverse d). Under these ci rcumstances, the trial

court stretched the li

mi ted ci rcumstantial

evi dence bey ond a reasonabl

e i nf erence. See Pe o ple v. Rouser , 199 Ill . App. 3d 1062,No. 2-- 08--0120

-9-

1066 ( 19 90 ) . Re sp o nd en t 's g uilt co uld be ba se d o nly on p oss i bi l i ty an d c onj ec ture , wh

i ch i s n ot proof beyond a reasonabl

e doubt. See People v . Ehl ert , 211 Ill . 2d 192, 213 (2004) ("the fact that def endan t is 'pr obab l y' gu i l ty d oes n ot equate wi

th gui l t bey ond a reas onab l e doubt"). Even if we were to apply

the Ho usby

test t o t he i

nf erence dr awn in t his case , t he sa me r es ult obta i ns : the Sta

te f ai l ed to meet i ts b urden of pr oo f. Aga in, for an in

ference to sat isf

y due process under Ho usby , ( 1) t her e must be a r at ional co nnect ion bet wee n t he fact pr ove d and t he fact i nf erred, (2) th e ul ti mate f ac t m us t more l

i ke l y tha n n ot f l ow f rom the basic f

act, and (3) t he i

nf erence must be su ppo rt ed bycorroborati ng e vi den ce of gui l t. W.C. , 16 7 I ll. 2d at 336. Here, t he ul tim ate fact that re sp on den

t com m i tted th e b atte

ry di d n ot m orel i ke l y th an n ot d er iv

e from the fact t hat re spo ndent was in

poss es si onof a bro ken bo t t le. I n light o f the mass o f peo ple su rr ou nding t he scene, t he fac t t ha t mult iple bott le s were bei ng thrown at the scene (wh ic h mea ns t ha t o t he rpe o ple possessed b ot tles as

well), the f

act that Blomb erg did n

ot turn around until

two minute s aft er being h i t, and the f

act that respo nden

t was standi

ng 10 f eet away wh

en Bl ombe rg observed

him, it wa s no m ore like ly t hat re spo ndent hit Blo mberg t han t hat t he gu ilty par t y was o ne o f t he o t he r99 pe o ple par t icipat ingi

n the m elee. It is tr ue t hat it co uld have be en r es po nd en t wh o co mmit t ed t he ba t t er y, buti t wa s n ot more l ike ly than n ot that he was the cul

prit. See Ho usby , 84 Ill . 2d at 42 2 ("w hi l e the re ma y b e a strong pro bab il

ity that t he i nf erence is accurate, this doesnot mean it i s 'm ore li kel y tha n n ot' t ru e t hat t he po sses so r o f the pr o pe r t y is the b urgl ar"). Th e rea sona bl e prob ab i l i

ty th at Bl omb erg was hit by one of the other 99 crowd mem bers precludes the in

ference of respondent's guil t. Because t he evi dence di d not meet the second f

actor o f the Ho usby

tes t, th e i

nf ere nc e f ai l s to s at isfy due process. Accordin

gly , respondent's adj udic ation can not rest o n thi s i

nf erence.No. 2-- 08--0120

-10-

The State's

l eadi ng c ase , In re Keith C. , 378 Il l . Ap p. 3d 25 2 (200 7), d oes not co mpe l a different res

ul t. In f ac t, th e c as e h

asno a ppl i ca ti on her e. In Kei

th C. , t he r es po nd en t ch alle ng ed his adjud icat ion, arguin

g that t he wi

tnes s's i dentif ic ation of the responde

nt as one of the robb ers was unrel ia ble. Kei th C. , 37 8 I ll. A pp . 3d at 25 9. T he co ur t dis cussed factor s t ha t we r e r ele va nt in asse ssing the credi

bi l i ty of i den tif i cation testi

mony . Kei

th C. , 378 Ill. App . 3 d at 258 . H er e, no o ne dis putes that respondent was present at the scene of the fi ght or t hat Blombe

rg sawre sp on den

t wi th a broken bottle i

n hi s han d, standin g 10 feet away. But Blomb erg did no t ide nt ify wh o hit him, because he did not see who hit hi m. Thus, the crux of the case ca me down to what i nf eren ces were reas onab l e i

n l i ght of the evi den ce pre sen ted. Kei th C. off ers no support for t he State's case. In sum, t he St at e's e vidence was insufficient t o p ro ve r esp ond ent 's guil t o f b atter y b ey

ond a reasonabl e doubt. Accordingl

y, the j udgme

nt of the ci

rcuit court o f K

ane County

is reversed. Reversed. McL AR EN an d JOR GENSEN , JJ., c oncu

r.