## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2424 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M AT T HE W E VANS, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07- CR-159- BBC -04

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Chief Ju dge
.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 5, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 13, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd P OSNERa nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . The defendant w as convi cted o far m ed bank ro bbe ryand re l ate d cri m es and sentence d to 382 m onths i n pri son. The se ntence w as w i thi n the gui del i nes r ange, but onl y b ecause the dist ri ct j ud ge deem ed the d efe n d an t’s p re vio u s c on vic tio n o f ag gr avate d batte ryi n vi ol ati on o fI l l i noi s l aw a “c rim e o fvi ol en ce” wi th i n the mean i ngo fs ec ti o n 4 B1. 2( a) o fthe2 N o. 08

- 2424 f edera l se ntenci ng g uidel i nes. The appealch al l enges that rul i ng. Under I l l i no i s l aw, “ a per son c o m m i ts b at te r y i fhe i nt en ti o na l l y o r kno wi ng l y wi th o ut l eg al j us ti fi ca ti o n a nd by any m ea n s, ( 1) cause s bo dil y har m to an ind i vi du al or( 2) m ake s physi calco ntact ofan insul ti ng o r prov o k i n gn a t u r e wi th a n i n d i v i d u a l

. ” 7 2 0 I L C S 5 / 1 2

- 3 ( a )
. He c om m its “a gg ra va te d ba tt er y” (so far a s re lat es t o t h is c as e) if in a d d i tio n h e “ kn ow s t h e in d ivid u al h ar m ed is pregnant. ” 7 20 I LC S 5/ 12- 4( b) ( 11)
. The defendant had been i nd i cted f orhavi ng “know i ngl y a n d w i thout l ega l j us ti fi ca ti o n, made co nt ac t o fa n i ns ul tingo r prov o k i ng na tu r e wi th Apri l Laude r dal e, i n th at th e d efenda nt pu shed A pri l Laud er dale , kno w i ng A p ril Laud er dale to be pr egna nt
. ” H e pl ea ded g ui l ty, a dm i tt i ngth e f o l l o wi ng f acts : at10 p. m . o ne ni ght he ente re d t h e apartm ent o f Laud er d ale, f our m onths pregnant byhi m , and accuse d her ofsl eepi ng with othe r m en. H e be ga n c ar ryi ng thi ngs o uto fthe ap ar tment, i nc l udi nga t el ev i si o n s et
. S he l o ck ed th e do o r t o k ee p hi m fr o m retur ni nga nd t ak i ng m or e s tuff o u t but he ki cked i n the door, “g rabbed M s. Laud er dale by the f ace and pu shed herdow n to the fl oo r. H e th en ye l l ed f orthe tw o gi rl s [ w ho had accom p an ied h im on th e v isi t to the ap artm en t, bu t w ere ou ts id e] t o c om e in sid e a n d , qu ot e, kic k t h is b itc h ’s a ss .” Laud er dale grabbed a kni f e a nd st abbed the defendant, and he l eft, sa yi ng, “I p ushed her dow n, and she stabbed m e.” S o was hi s co nv i ct i o n o f“ ag g r av at ed ba tt er y ” a co nv i c t i o n o f a “ c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e ” ? I t w a s i f th e c r i meN o. 08

- 2424 3 ofwh i ch he was co nvi cte d h as “as an el em ent the use, att em pte d u se, o r thre ate ned use o fphysi calf or ce aga i nst the per son of another, ” U.S
. S. G. § 4 B1. 2( a) ( 1) , o r i s “ burgl ar y o fa dw el l i ng, ar so n , orexto rt i on, i nvol ves use o fexp los i ves, o r othe rwis e invol ves conduct that prese nts a se riou s p ote nti alr i sk ofphysi cali nj ury to anothe r. ” § 4B1. 2( a)(2)
. ( These defi ni ti ons ar e i denti cal to thos e f ound in the Arm ed Caree r Cri m i nal A ct, 18 U. S
. C. § 9 24 ( e) ( 2) ( B) , a no ther b as i s f o r i nc r ea sing a f ede r alde f en dan t’ s se nt en ce b ec au se ofpr ev i o us c o nvi cti ons, exce pt thatthe sta tutor y defi ni ti on l eave s o ut “o f a d we l l i ng . ” ) T he c r i me o fwh i c h the de f e nd a nthad been convi cted does notfi t the fi rs t su b sect i on quote d abov e. The use, et c ., of “physi calf or ce” i s no t a n e l e m e ntof th at cr im e, sin c e a ll th at th at cr im e re q u ire s is proo fo fm aki ng an “i nsul ti ng o r provo ki ng” physi cal co nt ac t wi tha w om an kno wn to b e pr egna nt
. The que st i o n i s whethe r the de fen dan t’ s cr i m e fi tt ed th e se con d s ubs ec ti o n ( “c o nduc t th atpr es en ts a s er i o us p oten tial risk ofph ysical i njury to anoth er”). The te rm s “ i nsul ti ng” a nd “pro vok i ng” a re ta ken fro m the c om m on l aw to rto fbat ter y, w h ich r equi re s o nl y a n offe n si ve conta ct

— the s o r to fthingtha tmi g htp r o v o ke a br each o fthe peace, a s it d id here : the provo kerwas stabbed by hi s v i cti m . S pit ti ng o n a per son i s t h e usual exam ple gi ven o f a p ro vok i ng ac t that a m ounts to batter y. E .g., A lcorn v. M it chel l , 63 Ill. 55 3 (1 87 2); Cohe n v . Sm it h , 648 N .E .2d 32 9, 33 1-3 3 (Ill. A p p . 199 5); Caudl ev. B et ts , 51 2 So. 2d 389, 39 1- 92 ( La. 19 87) ; se e a l so W
. Page K ee to n etal., P ross er and Kee ton on the Law of Torts § 9, p . 41

- 42 (5t h ed . 198 4); Re s t at e men t ( S e c on d) of To rt s § 1 9 an d4 N o. 08

- 2424

co m m en t a ( 19 65 )
. And s o if you d el ibe r at el y s pi t o n a pregnant w om an you ar e gui l ty of the cri m e o fag gr avat ed b at te ry in Illin ois , P eop le v. D o rn , 88 3 N
. E.2 d 584, 58 8- 89 (Ill. A p p . 200 8); Peop l ev. Johns on , 80 7 N .E .2d 6 93, 69 5- 97 ( Ill. A p p . 200 4); P eoplev. Peck, 6 3 3 N
. E
. 2 d 2 2 2 ( I l l

. App
. 1994 ) , ev en tho ugh spi tti ng d oe s no t invol ve “physi cal for c e” or in flict b od ily h a r m . G a rcia -M eza v. M uk a sey, 51 6 F.3d 535 , 537 (7th C ir. 2008). To f al l under the se c ond subsect i on o fse cti on 4 B1. 2( a) o fthe g ui del i ne s, the crim e m us t be s i m i l art o the offen se s l i ste d i n that subsect i on

— si m i l ar, thati s, to b u rg lary o fa dw el l i ng, ar son, exto rt i on, any cri m e that i nvol ves the use o fexpl osi ves, o r any oth ercr i m e that p re se n ts a se riou s ris k of p h ys ica l inju ry . B ega y v . U nited Sta tes , 1 28 S . C t. 15 81 , 158 5 (2 00 8); Ja m es v. U nited Sta tes , 55 0 U
. S. 19 2, 203- 09 ( 2007 )
. M er el y c ar el ess ( eve n though c r i mi n a l a n d d a n g e r o u s ) c o n d u c twi l l n o ts u ff i ce , h o we v e r. B ega y v . U nited Sta tes , sup ra , 1 2 8 S
. Ct
. a t15 86- 88 ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Woods , N o. 07- 3851 , 20 09 W L 23827 00, at * 7- 8 ( 7th Cir
. A ug. 5, 2009 )
. That i s not a p ro bl em i n thi s ca se ; the I l l i no i s st atut e r equi r es tha t th e defe nd ant’ s “ i nsul ti ng o r provo ki ng” physi calco ntact wi ththe v i cti m b e i nt en ti o na l o r, whata m o unt s to the sa m e t h in g, kn ow in g. Se e, e.g ., U ni t e d S t at e s v. Hol l and, 83 1 F. 2d 7 17, 72 2- 23 ( 7th Ci r. 19 87)
. But an “insul ti ng o r p ro vo kin g” p h ys ica l co n t a c t, th ou gh int en tio n al, co u ld be no m or e v i ol ent than spi tti ng, and a b att er y that consi sts m erel y o fdel iber ate l y s pit ti ng o n so m eone i s no t c o mp a r a b l e t o b u r g l a r y, a r s o n, e x t o r t i o n, o r a c r i me i nvol vi ng the use ofexpl osi ves. N or co uld i t be sa i d to prese nt a s e r i ous risk of p h ys ica l inju ry , U ni t e d S ta te s v.N o. 08

- 2424 5 Jo nes , 2 3 5 F
. 3 d 3 4 2 , 3 4 6

- 4 8 ( 7 th C i r . 20 0 0 ) , th o u g h s o me cour ts w oul d disa gr ee, m ostcl ear l y the Tenth Ci rcui t. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Paxt on , 4 2 2 F.3d 1203, 1205-07 (10th Cir. 2005 ). A l though the words “i nsul ti ng o r provoking ” m ake it s o u nd as i f all tha t th e I l l i no i s l eg i sl atur e ha d i n mi nd i s the kind o fl i ght o ff ensi ve touchi ng f am i l i arfro m c ivil b at te ry ca se s, th e I l l i n ois co u rt s h av e h eld th at it em bra ces m or e f or ceful bl ows as w ell, the ki nd thatas in th is cas e ca n kn oc k a p er so n to th e g r o u n d

. A ll st ate Ins . Co. v. Kovar, 842 N
. E
. 2d 1268, 1270-7 1 ( Ill. A p p . 2006); Peop l ev. Young, 840 N
. E
. 2d 825, 832-33 (I ll

. A p p . 2 0 05); cf. Peop l ev. Reynol ds , 832 N
. E
. 2d 512, 517 (I ll

. A p p . 2005). W e r e i tn o tf o r th i s j u d i c i a l g l o s s , th e a g g r a v a t e dbatt er y s tatu te w oul d fa i l to r each a cl ass o fbat ter i es that is a t least as ser i ous as the ones i t does re ach. K i ssi ng a pregnant wom an kno w i ng she di dn ’ t want to be ki sse d i s a n agg ra vate d batte ry . But i fthe sta tute i s co nfined to phy si ca l c o nt ac ts tha t, l i k e k i ss i ng, do no t i nfl i cta ny bodi l y har m , then i fthe defe nd ant’ s v i ctim d id not b elo n g t o a n y of t h e v u ln er ab le gr ou p s e n u m er at ed in 72 0 I LCS5 / 1 2

- 4 ( b ) h e wo ul d n o tb e g ui l t y o fa g g r a v ate d b a t t e r y e v en i fi ns t e a d o fk i s s i ngh e r h e b e a th e r u p, provi ded o nl y that he did notcause “gre at bodi l y harm , o r p erm an en t d isabil ity or d isfigurem en t.” § 12-4(a). T h u s , th e s a m e s t a t u t e , th e s a m e f o r m o fw o r d s , e mbra ces tw o cri m es: o ff ensi ve batt er y, and f or cibl e ba tte ry . I fthe t wo c r i m es wer e i n se par at e se ct i o ns o fthe batt er y s tatute ( orwithin th e s am e s ecti on but l i ste d se p ar at ely , N i

j hawan v
. A tt or ney Ge ne r al , 12 9 S
. Ct. 22 94,6 N o. 08

- 2424 2299 ( 2009 ) , as would be the case i fthe sam e s ecti on pu ni s he d “ i ns ul t i ng a pr e g na nt wo man ” a nd “ b e a t i ng a pregnant wom an”) , and the defe nd ant w er e convi cted o fv i o l at i ngthe s ec ti o n pun i sh i ngfo r cibl e ba tt er y, the f act that anothe r sect i on punis hed a ba tte rythatwas not f or cibl e and there f or e not a cri m e of vi ol en c e u nd er f ede r all aw wou l d b e i r r el evant
. Buti n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Woods , sup ra , ano therpanelo fthi s co urt has hel d that w hen a sta tute f ai l s t o pla ce the cr i m e that i s a cr i m e o f vi ol ence, and the cri m e that i s no t a cr i m e o fvi ol ence, i n s epa r at e se ct i o ns ( o r i n a l i sto fs epa r at e cr i m es inthe sam e section ), th e d efend an t can not be given th e crim e-ofvi ol ence enhancem ent. There i s a n exception ifthe “ge

neri c ” cr i m e ( that i s, the cri m e o fco nvi cti on, her e a n i ns ul tinga nd pr o vo k i ngphy si ca l c o nt ac t wi tha pr egna nt w om an) as generallyco m m i tte d i s v i ol ent. S ee id

. at* 7. But the g ov er nm ent doe sn’ t a rgue thatm osti nsul ti ng o r provo ki ng condu ct with a pr egnant w om an i s v i ol ent, as th e co nduc t in the pr es en t ca se was , a nd s o the s en tence cannotbe up hel d on thatbas i s. Woods was ci rcul ate d to the fullco urt i n advance o f i ssuance, and a m aj or i ty vot ed not to hear the case en banc. Woods go ver ns, and re quir es that the defen d an t be resen ten ced

. H is senten ce is therefore V ACATED .N o. 08

- 2424 7 P OSNER , Cir c u i t J udg e , wi t h w hom C h ief J ud ge E A S T E RB R OO Kj oi ns, co ncurr i ng. The Woods dec i si o n c o m pel s r ev er sa l, b utIdo no t ag r ee tha t th e rul e i t l ays dow n i s s ound. The rul e i s that i fa sta tute pu ni sh es t w o cri m es, o ne a cri m e o fvi ol ence, o ne not, und erthe sam e nam e ( i n thi s ca se, “a ggr avat ed batt er y” defined as intenti onal l y o r knowingl y m aki ng physi cal co nt ac t o fa n i ns ul tingo r pr o vo k i ng n atur e wi tha pr egna ntwoman) , the de f en dan t ca nno t be g i ve n the se nt en ci ngg ui del i ne s’ c r i m e- o f

- vi o l en ce e nhance m en t unle ss the s tatute i s g ener al l y v i ol ate d b y the cr i m e o f violen ce. I t i s no t e nough that, as i n thi s ca se, as the per curi am o pini on m ake s cl ear, the defe nd ant co m m itt ed the “ cri m e o fv iole nce” v er si on o fthe sta tutor y o ff ense, th e st atut o r y de f en se b eingb at te r y o fa pr egna ntwoman. A se nten c i ng j ud ge i s no t per m i tte d to base a re ci divi st enhancem en t o n conduct thatvi ol ate s a st atute o ther than the o ne the defendant had been charg ed w i th vi ol a t i n g . T h e j u d g e i s n o tto b a s e th e s e n t e n c e o n h i s “ o wn co nc ept i o n o fthe o ff en se a ctua l l y c ons titut ed bythe defe nd ant’ s conduct. ” St ephen J

. S chulho f er, “Due Pro cess ofS entenci ng, ” 1 28 U
. Pa. L. Re v. 73 3, 75 7 (1 980)
. H e is not t o “ c o n s i d e r th e n a t u r e a n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o fth e c r i mi na l c o nd uc ti nv o l v e d w ith o ut reg a rd to th e o ff ense ch ar g e d

. ” Mi ch ae l H. To nr y, “ Re alOff en se S en te nc i ng : The M odelS entencingand Corr ecti ons A ct, ” 7 2 J. Crim . L. & Cri m i nol ogy1550, 1555-56 (1981) (em p ha sis i n origi na l)

. S uppo se , the r efo r e, tha t Eva ns ha d b ee n i ndi ct ed an d con vic t e d o f sim p le l arcen y based on his th eft ofLa ud erdal e’ s te l ev i si o n s et, a nd a t th e g ui l ty
- pl ea he ar i ngthe8 N o. 08

- 2424 pr o se cut o r de sc r ibe d the c irc um st an ce s su r r o undi ngthe th eft, i nc l udi ngthe pus hi ngo fLa ude r dal e, a nd the defe nd ant a dm i tte d un d ero ath that the ci rcum sta nces ha d been ex actly as th e p rosecu tor d escribed

. N everth ele ss th e d ist ric t jud ge , in ap p lyin g t h e g u i d e l in es in the pr es en t case, would not have been author i zed to tr ea t t h e d efe n d an t’s co n v i c t i on of sim p le lar c en y (a kin to ste al i ng a bi cycl e from a bi cycl e s tand, the own er bei ng nowhere i n si ght) as a convi cti on o fa cri m e o f vi ol ence w i thi n the m eani ng o fthe senten c ing guideli ne s. H e w ou ld h av e t o treat it as a con viction for a no nv i o l en t cr i m e be ca us e th atwas the on ly cri m e th e de f e nd a nth a d b e e n c o nv i c t e d o f

. S e e U nit e d S t at e s v. Lewis , 4 0 5 F .3 d 51 1, 51 3-1 5 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. B a rtee, 529 F.3d 357, 360-61 (6th C ir. 2008). H a v ing d eterm i ned that the d efendant had been convi cted o fa nonvi ol en t c ri m e, the j udg e co ul d no t g o o n t o c o ns i derho w the defe nd ant had co m m i tte d that c ri m e, and, i fhe ha d used vi ol ence i n the com m i ssi on o fit, e nhance the sente nce acco rdi ngl y. Bu t s i nce th e sta tutor y t er m “i nsul ti ng o r provo ki ng” cove rs a ra nge o fkind s o r concepts o fbat tery , s om e o f w hi ch cr eat e a se ri ous r i sk ofi nj ury and som e o fwh i ch do no t, a nd the i ndi ct m ent or o th erc ha r g i ngdo cument d oe s n o t ind icate w he re i n th e range the d efend an t’s conduct fel l, we can l oo k a t th e recor d ofthe gui l ty- ple a he ar i ngt o di sa m bi g ua te the a ppl ication o fs ta tu te t o the c a s e. InSh epa rd v . U nited Sta tes , 5 4 4 U. S
. 1 3 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , t he Sup re m e Cour t r ule d that i fburg l ar y under sta te l aw i ncl ud es entr y into a bo at, but “c rim e ofvi ol ence” f or pu rpos es ofthe A rm ed Caree r Cri m i nal A ct r equi re sN o. 08

- 2424 9

en tr y in to a b u ild in g, th e s e n t e n c in g jud ge ca n, an d in fact ha s to , l o o kt o the g ui l ty
- pl ea he ar i ngt o de te r m i ne w hetherthe defe nd ant a dm i tte d to enter i ng a bui l ding. S ee al so Ta ylo r v . U nited Sta tes , 49 5 U .S. 57 5, 60 2 (1 99 0); C h a mbers v. U nite d Sta tes , 129 S. C t. 68 7 (2 00 9); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sm it h , 544 F.3 d 7 8 1 , 786 -87 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. R o drig uez , 52 3 F.3d 51 9, 52 4 (5 th C ir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. R o sa , 507 F.3d 142 , 151-54 (2d Cir. 2007). Sh epa rd was a c ase i n w hi ch the sam e s tat e cr i m in al sta tute pu ni shed both condu c t th at w as not a cr i m e o f vi o l e n c e u n d e r fe d e r a l l a w a n d c o n d u c tth a twa s : puni shed , in eff ect, two cr i m es, and the questi on was w hi ch the defendant had com m itt ed

. To a nsw erthatquesti on r e qu i r e d k no wi ng wha t the de f e nd a nt ha d do ne . A dm i ssi ons in a guil ty- ple a hea ri ng, being j ud i ci aladm i ssi ons, bi nd the defe nd ant in subsequent proce edi ngs a nd so avo i d any o ccasi on f orthe f edera l se ntenci ng ju d ge to de t e r mi ne c o nt e s t e d f a c t s r e g a r di ng a n e a r l i e r c r i m e f or p u rp os es of d ec id in g w h ich n ich e itfits in

— the o ff ense that i s no t a cri m e o fvi ol ence orthe off ense that i s, bo th b ein g c ov er ed by th e s a m e st at u to ry lan gu ag e. Brown v. G reen , 7 3 8 F.2d 20 2, 20 6 (7 th C ir. 19 84 ); H ue r t a- Gue vara v. A shcroft, 32 1 F
. 3d 883, 88 8 ( 9th Ci r. 20 03)
. The m aki ng o f such a f actualdeter m i nati on would be o bj ecti onabl e a s r equiring tr i al s wi th i n s en te nc i nghe ar i ng s an d ( i fthe r es ul t was t o i nc r ea se the maxi m um puni sh m en t ofthe defe nd ant) i nfr i ngi ng the r i ght t o tr i alby j ury conferr ed b y t h e Six th A m en d m en t. Ta ylo r v. U nited Sta tes , sup ra , 49 5 U .S. at 6 00 -02 ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sh ann on , 11 0 F.3 d 382, 38 4- 85 (7t h C ir. 19 97 ) (en ba n c ); Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Bro wn i ng, 436 F.3 d 7 80 , 7 80 -82 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); U nited Sta tes v. R o sa , sup ra ,10 N o. 08

- 2424 507 F
. 3d at1 52

- 53
. The que st i o n i n thi s ca se a s i n Ta yl or is n ot w h at th e d efe n d an t d id

— that i s not i n dis pu te

—but w hat cr i m e he w as convi cted o f

. “Congr es s i ntended th e se nt en ci ngc o ur t to l o o ko nl y t o t he f ac t th atthe d efe n d an t h a d b e en co n vic te d of cr im es fallin g w ith in ce r ta i n c at eg o r ies, and n o t to the f ac ts unde r l y i ngthe pri orco nvi cti ons. ” 4 95 U
. S. at60 0. I t i s the sa m e her e. A si ngl e statutor y pr ovi si on cr eat es c rim es both w i thi n the f edera l dom ai n and outsi de i t. In C ha m bers v. U nited S ta tes, sup ra , the tw o crim es w ere br ea k i ngo uto fa j ai l a nd f ai l i ngto r epo r t f o r wee k en d confi nem ent, and the Cour t hel d that the l att erwas not a cr i m e o fvi ol ence. I n thi s ca se, th e t w o cri m es ar e a b a t t e r y tha tc a us e s o r thr e ate ns p hy s i c a l i nj ur y a nd a b at te ry th at inv olv e s ju st an offe n siv e t ou c h in g a n d is pu ni shed n ot b ecause i t ca uses orev en cr eat es a r i sk of physi cali nj ury but be cau se it m i ght pr ovo ke a br each o f the pea ce b y the vi cti m . The f or m erbut not the l att er off ense fi ts the defi ni ti on o fvi ol ent fel ony. I cannots e e wh a tdi ff e r e nc e i tma k e s tha tthe s e c r i mes ar e no t i n s epa r at e se ct i o ns o f th e b at te r y s ta tu te
. The divi si on o fa sta tute i nto sect i ons has nev erbee n re ga rd ed as h av in g s u b s t an tiv e s ign ifica n c e; it is m er ely a d ev ice for e as e o fr efe re n c e. N o Su p re m e C ou rtd ec isi on a tta ches si gni fi cance to the pr ese nce o r abse nce o f sect ions. I f th e s a m e s e ction cov ers tw o crim es, th e cou rt ca n l o o ka t th e co nc ede d f acts of th e defen dan t’ s co ndu ct to deter m i ne w hi ch cri m e the defe nd an t c om m i tted. The “ca teg or i cal ” a pp ro ac h requi re s the co urt to i denti fy the cr i m e co m m itted by the defendant andtoN o. 08

- 2424 11 stop there an d not con side r how h e c om m itt ed it

— w hether f orexam ple he c om m i tte d a cr i m e in a v i ol ent m ann er though v i ol ence w as n ot an el em ent o fthe cri m e. That l i m i tat i on upon the cour t’ s inquir y doe s no t m ake “ca tego ry ” a sy n on ym for “ se c tio n .” Si nce the i nd i ctm ent doe sn’ t ind i cate wh i ch ki nd o f ba tt er y the de f en dan t co m m i tt ed, we m ayl o o kb eh i nd th e i ndi ct m en t to the f ac tu ala l l egati o ns tha t th e d e f e n d a n ta d m i tt e d i n p l e a d i n gg u i l t y, a n d wh e n we do thi s we l earn tha t he no t o nl y s ho ve d a pr egna nt w om an to the gr ou n d b u t by shouti ng f or“the gi rl s” to beatherup m ade herfeara m or e s erious physi cal inj ury

— and the co m bi nati on o fphy sic al f or ce a nd fear of seri ou s inj ury co uld i nd uc e a m iscarriage. Cf. B row nba ckv. Fra iley, 78 Ill. A p p . 262 (Ill. A p p . 189 8); E ngle v. Si m m ons , 41 S o. 10 23 , 102 3-2 4 (A la. 19 06 ); Whi t s e l v. Wat ts , 159 P . 401 , 401 -02 (K an . 191 6); K ir by v. Jule s C hain St or e s Corp. , 18 8 S
. E. 625 ( N
. C. 1936 )
. I n th e l anguage o f the guidel i ne, the defe nd ant created “a se ri ous pot enti al ris k of p h ys ica l inju ry to an ot h er .” I n Taylo rthe Suprem e Cour t s ai d that“i n a S tat e w h os e b u rg lar y s ta tu te s in c lu d e e n tr y o fan au to m ob ile as w el l as a bui l ding, i fthe i nd i ctm ent o r i nfo rm ati on and j ury i nstr ucti ons show th at the defe nd ant was ch ar g ed o nl y wi tha b ur g l ar y o fa b ui l di ng, a nd that th e j ury necess ar ily had to fi nd an e ntryo fa bui l ding to convi ct, then the Gove rnm ent s houl d be a l l ow ed t o use the c onvi cti on f orenhancem ent. ” 4 95 U
. S. at60 2. I ff or “burg l ar y” w e s ubsti tute “ba tte ry, ” f or“a utom obi l e” a m er el y “ o ff en si ve ” to uching, a nd f o r “ bui l di ng ” cr ea ting12 N o. 08

- 2424

a r i sk ofphysi calhar m by sho vi ng a pregnant wom an to the g ro und , we have thi s ca se. Bo thi n Sh epa rd a nd i n C ha m bers the t wo c r i m es tha t th e S upr eme Co ur t co ns i der ed wer e f ou nd i n the s ame s ta tu
to r y s e c t i o n. 7 2 0 I LCS5 / 1 2

- 4 ( b ) ( 1 1 ) l i k e wi s e p un i s he s tw o sep ar ate cr i m es ( so f aras bea rs o n thi s ca se)

— o ff e nsi ve physi calco ntact w i th a pregnant wom an t h at does, and tha t do e s no t, i nfl i c t b o di l y ha r m, W e ne e d to l oo k to the c ha r g i ng d ocum en t an d the g ui l ty
- pl ea he ar i ng to de te r m i ne , o n th e ba si s o fthe de f en dan t’ s admi ss i o n, whi chc r i m e he was c o nv i ct ed o f

. As s ho wn in the charg i ng papers and ple a co l l oquy, he w as convi cted o f the typ e ofag gr avat ed batt er y under I l l i noi s l aw that fi ts w i thi n the gener i c fe d er aldefi ni ti on o fcr i m e o fvi olence

. H is senten ce w as th erefore prop er. Bu t s i nce a m aj or i ty ofthe cour t has vot ed not to re hear Woods , Ibo w to i ts p re cedenti alf or ce a nd thus a gr ee tha tthe de f e nd a nt ’ s s e nt e nc e mus tb e v a c a t e d.

8- 13- 09