ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS

Appellate Court

People v. Howard, 2012 IL App (3d) 100925

Appellate Court

Caption

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

EVERETT L. HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.

 District & No. Third District

Docket No. 3-10-0925

Filed May 29, 2012

Held

(Note: This syllabus

constitutes no part of

the opinion of the court

but has been prepared

by the Reporter of

Decisions for the

convenience of the

reader.)

Defendant’s conviction for aggravated domestic battery was reduced to

aggravated battery due to the State’s failure to establish that defendant

and the victim were involved in a dating relationship.

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Knox County, No. 09-CF-393; the Hon.

Stephen C. Mathers, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed as modified.
Counsel on

Appeal

Gabrielle Green, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Ottawa, for

appellant.

John T. Pepmeyer, State’s Attorney, of Galesburg (Terry A. Mertel and

Nadia L. Chaudhry, both of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s

Office, of counsel), for the People.

Panel JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the judgment of the court, with

opinion.

Justice O’Brien concurred in the judgment and opinion.

Presiding Justice Schmidt dissented, with opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 Defendant, Everett L. Howard, was convicted of aggravated domestic battery (720 ILCS

5/12-3.3(a) (West 2008)), a Class 2 felony, and sentenced to 30 months’ probation and 60

days in jail. He appeals his conviction, arguing that the evidence failed to establish that he

was in a dating relationship with the victim and, therefore, his conviction should be reduced

to aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-4(a) (West 2008)), a Class 3 felony. We agree and

reduce defendant’s conviction from aggravated domestic battery to aggravated battery.

¶ 2 FACTS

¶ 3 Defendant was charged with aggravated domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.3(a) (West

2008)), unlawful restraint (720 ILCS 5/10-3(a) (West 2008)), and domestic battery (720

ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1) (West 2008)). The cause proceeded to a bench trial.

¶ 4 At trial, the victim testified that on the night of the incident she met up with defendant

and other friends at a local bar. While there, she agreed to meet defendant at his residence

after they left the bar separately. At defendant’s house, the victim and defendant had a couple

beers and then engaged in sexual intercourse. When they were finished, defendant went to

the bathroom, and when he returned to the bedroom, he was angry. He grabbed the victim

by the hair and pulled her off the bed. After a failed attempt to defend herself, defendant got

on top of the victim and struck her numerous times with a closed fist.

¶ 5 Both the victim and defendant testified regarding the status of their relationship. When

asked if they were in a dating relationship, both stated that they were not; however, they had

had around 15 sexual encounters beginning approximately a year and a half before the

incident. The victim stated that their relationship was strictly sexual in nature. Defendant

considered the relationship to be a series of “one-night stands” and stated that he had never

bought the victim flowers. The two had never spent an entire night together and did not

spend much time in each other’s company outside the presence of their group of friends.

-2-
¶ 6 The trial court found defendant guilty of aggravated domestic battery after concluding

that he and the victim were in a dating relationship. Defendant was sentenced to 30 months’

probation and 60 days’ incarceration. Defendant appeals.

¶ 7 ANALYSIS

¶ 8 Defendant argues that the evidence at trial failed to establish that he was in a dating

relationship with the victim. When presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence, it is not the function of this court to retry defendant; rather, the relevant question

is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable

doubt. People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237 (1985). A conviction will only be overturned where

the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactoryas to justifya reasonable doubt

of defendant’s guilt. People v. Smith, 185 Ill. 2d 532 (1999).

¶ 9 In order to be convicted of domestic battery, the State must prove that the accused and

the victim were familyor household members. 720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1) (West 2008). Family

or household members include persons who have or have had a dating or engagement

relationship. 725 ILCS 5/112A-3(3) (West 2008). Here, the State attempted to prove that

defendant and the victim had a dating relationship.

¶ 10 At trial, evidence established that defendant and the victim had numerous sexual

encounters; however, it is not enough to show that defendant and the victim had an intimate

relationship. The State must show that they had a dating relationship. People v. Young, 362

Ill. App. 3d 843 (2005). The Second District has defined a dating relationship to mean

serious courtship, which must be, at a minimum, an established relationship with a

significant romantic focus. Id. While defendant and the victim clearly had an established

relationship, we do not find that their relationship had a romantic focus. Both defendant and

the victim testified that they were not dating and defendant stated that he never bought the

victim flowers. Defendant and the victim were not exclusive, and the relationship did not

contain any sort of shared expectation of growth. Rather, defendant and the victim engaged

in random sexual encounters which were physical in nature, not romantic.

¶ 11 Based on the evidence, we find that the State did not establish a dating relationship and

defendant cannot be convicted of the Class 2 felony of aggravated domestic battery. Thus,

we reduce defendant’s conviction to the Class 3 felony of aggravated battery. While we

reduce defendant’s conviction, we believe that the sentence imposed by the trial court is

appropriate for the Class 3 felony of aggravated battery. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 615(b); 730 ILCS

5/5-4.5-40(d) (West 2008). Therefore, we allow defendant’s sentence to stand.

¶ 12 CONCLUSION

¶ 13 The judgment of the circuit court of Knox County is affirmed as modified.

¶ 14 Affirmed as modified.

-3-
¶ 15 PRESIDING JUSTICE SCHMIDT, dissenting:

¶ 16 The issue before us, as the majority concedes (supra ¶ 9), is whether after viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have

found that the defendant and his victim have or have had a dating relationship. People v.

Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237 (1985); 725 ILCS 5/112A-3(3) (West 2008).

¶ 17 The victim testified that sometime after meeting defendant through friends, her

relationship with him evolved into more than just friends, although she testified she was “not

really” dating defendant. Nonetheless, there is evidence that defendant and his victim “hung

out” together, drank together, played pool together, talked on the phone and spent time at

each other’s homes. They had sexual relations approximately 15 times, including the night

of the incident. This relationship was not the “intimate friendship and intimate working

relationship” referred to in People v. Young, 362 Ill. App. 3d 843, 851 (2005).

¶ 18 I am troubled by the majority’s apparent requirement that a dating relationship for

purposes of section 112A-3(3) (725 ILCS 5/112A-3(3)(West 2008)) must include a “shared

expectation of growth.” (Emphasis added.) Supra ¶ 10. I do not want to even guess what

percentage of domestic relationships that requirement would exclude from coverage.It would

seem that very often in a relationship expectations of growth are not mutual. Also, the

majority finds it significant that defendant neversent flowers to the victim. Supra ¶ 10. Well,

there goes at least another 80% of the relationships! Under the statute, the victim and the

accused must simply have or have had a dating relationship. Because I believe reasonable

people could find, based on the evidence presented, that this is or was a dating relationship

regardless of what the participants called it, a rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. With all due respect, Isubmit that

the majority has improperly engaged in a reweighing of the evidence.

¶ 19 I would affirm the trial court. Therefore, I respectfully dissent

-4-