2021 IL App (1st) 182299-U

No. 1-18-2299 

Order filed February 16, 2021 

First Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the 

limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

STEPHEN BUTTS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Cook County. 

No. 16 CR 00763 

Honorable 

Alfredo Maldonado, 

Judge, presiding. 

JUSTICE COGHLAN delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Walker and Justice Pierce concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Defendant’s conviction for aggravated domestic battery is affirmed where the 

evidence was sufficient to show he and the victim had a dating relationship.

¶ 2 Following a bench trial, defendant Stephen Butts was found guilty of two counts of 

aggravated domestic battery and one count of aggravated battery.1 The trial court merged the 

1 Defendant’s first name is also spelled “Steven” in portions of the record on appeal. However, we 

will use the spelling on the charging instrument and the majority of the reports of proceedings.
No. 1-18-2299 

- 2 - 

counts and sentenced defendant to 180 days in the Cook County Department of Corrections and 

two years’ probation on one count of aggravated domestic battery. On appeal, defendant argues 

we should reduce his conviction to aggravated battery where the evidence at trial failed to establish 

that the victim, Brittney Metzen, was a family or household member for purposes of the aggravated 

domestic battery statute. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

¶ 3 Defendant was charged by information with two counts of aggravated domestic battery

alleging that on or about November 10, 2015, defendant caused great bodily harm (720 ILCS 5/12-

3.3(a) (West 2014)) (count I) and permanent disfigurement (720 ILCS 5/12-3.3(a) (West 2014)) 

(count II) to Metzen by striking her about the head and body. These counts alleged Metzen was a 

family or household member as defined in section 112A-3(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 

of 1992 (725 ILCS 5/112A-3(3) (West 2014)) as defendant had a “previous dating relationship”

with her. Defendant was also charged with aggravated battery for causing bodily harm to Metzen 

when he struck her about the head and body with a bludgeon (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(f)(1) (West 

Supp. 2015)) (count III). 

¶ 4 The trial court granted the State’s motion to admit proof of other crimes, in part. It found a 

June 2013 incident between defendant and his ex-wife was admissible to show propensity to 

commit domestic violence and an April 2015 incident between defendant and Metzen was 

admissible to show motive or “lack of accident.” 

¶ 5 At trial, Metzen testified that she and defendant met in high school when she was 14. They

began a “dating relationship” in June 2014. In June 2015, after one year of dating, Metzen moved 

into defendant’s second floor apartment in a duplex on the 10600 block of South Calhoun Avenue 

in Chicago, Illinois. Around 9:15 p.m. on November 10, 2015, Metzen returned home from work
No. 1-18-2299 

- 3 - 

and let herself in through the downstairs door with her key. She unlocked the apartment door but 

was unable to enter her apartment because the deadbolt, for which neither she nor defendant had a 

key, was locked. Metzen repeatedly knocked on the door and called defendant’s phone to no avail. 

¶ 6 Metzen then heard defendant inside, so she asked him to let her in. Defendant opened the 

door and “shoved” Metzen down a stairwell. Metzen fell five steps until her “back hit the wall.” 

When she stood up, defendant closed and locked the door. Metzen knocked again and asked 

defendant to let her in. Defendant responded, “Knock on that door one more time and see what 

happens.” Metzen knocked and defendant opened the door and hit her five or six timesin her hands 

and head with an acoustic guitar before retreating inside the apartment. When Metzen knocked on 

the door again, defendant let her in. Defendant told her that she “didn’t look too good,” and she

saw that her head was split open. Metzen left the duplex and called 911.

¶ 7 The landlord’s husband brought Metzen into the first floor apartment to wait for 

paramedics. When they arrived, Metzen initially told them that she “fell up the stairs.” Metzen 

testified that she was “protecting” defendant because she “loved him.” She also did not feel 

comfortable “saying everything” in front of the landlord and her husband because they were friends 

of defendant’s family. Later, in the ambulance, Metzen admitted that defendant hit her with a 

guitar. As a result of the incident, Metzen received 17 stitches in her forehead and four staples on 

the side of her head, which resulted in scars. She also had a hairline fracture in her right thumb and 

a broken left middle finger, which required two surgeries and was permanently crooked at the time 

of trial. 

¶ 8 After being released from the hospital, Metzen stayed at her grandmother’s house for three 

days before returning to “defendant’s house” for several weeks. She moved out of defendant’s 
No. 1-18-2299 

- 4 - 

apartment on December 26, 2015. On December 29, 2015, Metzen filed a complaint with Chicago 

police. Officers accompanied Metzen to the Calhoun apartment where she let them in, retrieved 

“the rest of [her] stuff,” and they arrested defendant. She returned her keys to the landlord that day. 

¶ 9 A few months earlier, on April 6, 2015, Metzen and defendant argued at the apartment and

defendant called his mother and told her to pick Metzen up before he killed her. During the drive

to Metzen’s grandparents’ house in Highland, Indiana, Metzen, who was seated in the front 

passenger seat, turned around and argued with defendant, who was seated behind her. He punched 

her twice in the face with a closed fist. Defendant then grabbed her hair, put his arm around her 

neck, and squeezed hard enough to cause her trouble breathing. Metzen suffered red scratch marks 

and bruising on her neck. Later that day, she reported the incident to Highland police. 

¶ 10 On cross-examination, Metzen testified defendant gave her a key to the Calhoun apartment. 

Metzen’s name was not on the lease, but her mail and pay stubs reflected that address. During the 

April 2015 incident, she was at defendant’s apartment in order for him to remove a wart from her 

foot. They were drinking and arguing; defendant started arguing with her again in the car as his 

mother drove Metzen to her grandparents’ house, where she lived before moving in with 

defendant. On October 27, 2015, defendant’s birthday, defendant went out with his cousin and 

Metzen threw many of defendant’s belongings out of the apartment window.

¶ 11 After the November incident, Metzen got back together with defendant. On December 25, 

2015, she got into a fight with defendant in Indiana, during which she was “held captive” and bit 

him. Metzen denied that the fight was because she thought defendant was “with another girl.” 

Their relationship ended the following day.
No. 1-18-2299 

- 5 - 

¶ 12 On redirect examination, Metzen testified that on December 25, 2015, defendant and his 

cousin locked her in a bedroom and prevented her from leaving by shoving and hitting her for over 

an hour. Defendant’s cousin also drew a firearm at her. The State entered photographs Metzen 

identified as depicting her injuries resulting from the November and December 2015 incidents 

with defendant. 

¶ 13 Chicago Fire Department paramedic Katrina Basic testified that she responded to the 

November 2015 incident. Basic entered the first floor apartment of the Calhoun duplex where she 

met Metzen, who was “bleeding from the head,” and had a “severely deformed left finger that was 

also bleeding.” Metzen stated she lived upstairs and fell down the stairs, but Basic noticed “a lot 

of blood” at the top of the staircase and in the stairwell, which was inconsistent with Metzen’s 

explanation. A man in the second floor apartment did not offer any information when Basic 

inquired. Basic then put Metzen in an ambulance, where Metzen admitted that defendant struck 

her with an acoustic guitar. 

¶ 14 Chicago police officer Manuel Giron testified that on December 29, 2015, he and other 

officers accompanied Metzen to the Calhoun apartment to collect her “personal items” and arrest 

defendant for the November incident. Metzen gave the officers “keys to get into the apartment.” 

As an officer tried to open the apartment door with the keys, defendant opened the door. Police 

took him into custody and Giron inventoried the guitar Metzen claimed was used to batter her. On 

cross-examination, Giron stated that Metzen recovered clothes from the apartment. 

¶ 15 Molly Gardner, defendant’s ex-wife, testified that on June 22, 2013, she and defendant 

lived in an apartment in Highland, Indiana, with their two children. When Gardner returned home 

that evening, defendant appeared “[a]gitated and upset,” and Gardner suggested he go to sleep. 
No. 1-18-2299 

- 6 - 

When Gardner got into bed, she leaned in to kiss defendant, and he “got mad” and told her to leave 

the room, locking the door behind her. 

¶ 16 Gardner waited in the living room for approximately 30 to 60 minutes before pushing open

the bedroom door, which had a broken lock. Defendant told her she was not supposed to be there 

and then followed her as she walked down the hallway. Defendant grabbed the back of her shirt

and she turned to face him and backed up. As she backed away, defendant threw household objects

into walls. When she was backed into a window, defendant “grabbed” her shoulders and repeatedly 

“slamm[ed]” her against the glass. Gardner fled to the bedroom, dove facedown onto the bed to 

reach her phone, and defendant got on her and held her arms behind her back. He then covered her

nose and mouth with one hand and placed his other hand on her throat, applying pressure. 

Gardner’s glasses cut her nose, her nose piercing cut the inside of her nose, and her breath was 

restricted. Eventually Gardner was able to get defendant off her and call 911. She initiated divorce 

proceedings a few months later. 

¶ 17 Defendant testified that he met Metzen in high school. Defendant denied that he had a 

“dating relationship” with Metzen, but stated that over a period of two years, starting in June 2014, 

he and Metzen had sex approximately six times. Defendant denied that Metzen lived with him or 

that he “gave” her a key to his apartment. He testified that he “left” a key to the building’s front 

door for her so she could let herself in the building, but he did not tell her to “keep it.” Defendant 

put a deadbolt on his apartment door to which only he had a key.

¶ 18 On April 5, 2015, defendant invited Metzen over. He was going to remove a wart from her 

foot. At some point, defendant and Metzen began to argue, causing defendant’s landlord, Lisa 

Ramirez, to knock on his door. Metzen and Ramirez then began to argue, and Ramirez said she 
No. 1-18-2299 

- 7 - 

was going to call the police. Defendant asked Ramirez not to, testifying that he did not want 

Metzen to go to jail because she was his “friend,” whom he had known for a long time. Defendant’s 

mother then picked him and Metzen up to drive them to Indiana. Defendant testified that he never 

struck, scratched, or choked Metzen on the drive, although he did subdue her with a knee to the 

back of her neck as he was trained to do in the military. 

¶ 19 On defendant’s birthday on October 27, 2015, Metzen appeared at his apartment uninvited. 

Defendant had plans with his cousins and told Metzen she could not join them but could stay at 

his apartment. Defendant testified that he told her to stay because he “probably wanted to have 

sex.” When defendant returned that evening, he found his belongings, including his guitar, had 

been thrown outside. Defendant’s guitar was damaged as a result. 

¶ 20 On November 10, 2015, defendant was asleep when he heard “pounding” at the door. He 

asked who it was, Metzen identified herself, and defendant told her to go away. Metzen was not 

living with him, and had not been at the apartment for about two and a half weeks, since his 

birthday. The only items she had there were “[m]aybe like a dirty bra or a tank top” and a 

toothbrush. Metzen continued “pounding” on the door, so defendant opened it to tell her to stop, 

and Metzen grabbed the door with one hand and left the other in the doorway. Defendant shut the 

door on Metzen’s hands, causing her to fall backwards down the stairs. 

¶ 21 Defendant heard Metzen fall down the stairs and scream, “My hand. My hand.” Defendant 

opened the door and saw Metzen with a “deformed” hand and bleeding head. Defendant then let

her into the apartment and told her to call an ambulance. When paramedics arrived, defendant told 

them to “[g]et [Metzen] out” and that he did not “want nothing to do with her.” A few days later, 
No. 1-18-2299 

- 8 - 

defendant and his cousin picked Metzen up from “[h]er house” in Highland because he felt bad 

about her hand. 

¶ 22 On the evening of December 25, 2015, after he celebrated Christmas with his family, 

defendant and his cousin again picked Metzen up and they hung out together at his cousin’s house 

and a neighbor’s. Metzen got mad at defendant when he was speaking to another girl, and began 

attacking him. She bit defendant’s bicep and he pulled her hair to get her off. They ended up 

“wrestling” in a bedroom at his cousin’s until Metzen screamed for help, drawing a neighbor’s

attention, who drove defendant home. Defendant denied that his cousin had a firearm that evening

or “contained” Metzen in the bedroom. The defense entered photograph exhibits of defendant 

taken after the incident, which he testified showed his injuries from the incident.

¶ 23 In regard to the June 2013 incident with Gardner, defendant testified that Gardner was mad 

at him, punched holes in the wall, and initiated a physical confrontation. Defendant denied that he 

choked her, followed her through the apartment, or slammed her against a window. 

¶ 24 On cross-examination, defendant testified he never dated Metzen and she never lived with 

him. Metzen’s job was “a couple of blocks” from his apartment. Sometimes he would ask his

mother and cousin to drive Metzen to his apartment. During the April 2015 drive, Metzen and 

defendant’s mother hit each other and pulled each other’s hair. He did nothing beyond subduing 

Metzen. On October 27, 2015, Metzen came to spend time with him on his birthday but he left the 

apartment because he had plans. He did not hit her with a guitar during the November 2015 

incident. The last time he had sex with her was before Christmas in December 2015. The argument 

on Christmas began because Metzen became jealous when she thought he was flirting with another 

girl. 
No. 1-18-2299 

- 9 - 

¶ 25 Ramirez testified that she lived in the first floor apartment of the Calhoun duplex and rented 

the second floor apartment to defendant. He lived alone, installed a deadbolt on his apartment door, 

and had a key to it. Metzen did not live in the building, but would “come by and see [defendant] 

from time to time.” On cross-examination, Ramirez testified defendant did not have a lease and 

rented month-to-month. 

¶ 26 Gail Galich, defendant’s mother, testified defendant lived in the Calhoun apartment alone. 

On April 5, 2015, defendant called her to pick up Metzen and “take her home” to Highland, 

Indiana, where Metzen lived. During the drive, Metzen repeatedly attacked Galich and defendant. 

Defendant did not physically harm Metzen throughout these attacks.

¶ 27 On cross-examination, Galich testified that prior to that incident, she had met Metzen “a 

couple of times.” Galich recalled that defendant told Galich he had “met a girl,” and upon seeing 

Metzen, Galich said he must “have a type” because she looked like Gardner. Galich claimed that 

Metzen was not defendant’s “girlfriend,” and that defendant was not dating her. Galich testified 

that Metzen did not live in the Calhoun apartment.

¶ 28 Highland Indiana police officer Shawn Anderson testified that he responded to the June 

2013 incident between defendant and Gardner. He could not recall if Gardner told interviewing 

officers that defendant slammed her against a window. Gardner did not tell him that defendant 

choked her. The defense entered photographs taken the next day of Gardner’s injuries, which 

Anderson testified showed swelling on the side of her face and cheek and bruising on her left arm 

and wrist. On cross-examination, Anderson testified that there were holes in the apartment walls.
No. 1-18-2299 

- 10 - 

¶ 29 In rebuttal, the State entered a stipulation that, if called to testify, Indiana State Police 

trooper Daly2 would testify that around 9:50 p.m. on April 6, 2015, he was dispatched to Highland

Police Department to make a report of an alleged battery that occurred on Interstate 80 Eastbound. 

Daly met Metzen at the department and observed she had several injuries to her lip, eye areas, 

nose, neck, arms, and back. He later interviewed Galich, who provided that Metzen choked her 

and poked her chest. 

¶ 30 The trial court found defendant guilty on all counts. The court noted:

 “And the issue here is the defendant testified that the complaining witness was 

someone he just basically had some casual hookups with. He’d known her since high 

school and he had sex with her about six times. But the testimony of everyone here 

undercuts that testimony as far as I’m concerned. I agree that there probably was not a 

formal dating relationship, but there was a dating relationship here in this Court’s view. I 

do believe the complaining witness’ testimony about her having a relationship with the 

defendant. 

Now, whether or not she lived there, I don’t know. And she probably stayed there. 

I think the fact that her job was only a few blocks away cuts definitely towards that. I don’t 

think she actually had some formal relationship living there. But I think she was there more 

often than the defendant is willing to admit. The fact that she just happens to appear at 

holidays and other occasions definitely points to a far greater relationship. And I think her 

relationship with the defendant certainly falls under the *** legal definition of a dating 

relationship.”

2 Trooper Daly’s first name does not appear in the report of proceedings. 
No. 1-18-2299 

- 11 - 

¶ 31 Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which the court denied. The court merged counts 

II and III into count I and sentenced defendant to 180 days in the Cook County Department of 

Corrections and two years’ probation on the aggravated domestic battery count premised on great 

bodily harm. 

¶ 32 On appeal, defendant argues we should reduce his conviction to aggravated battery where 

the evidence at trial failed to establish that Metzen could be considered a “family or household 

member” as required to prove aggravated domestic battery. He contends the evidence reflected 

only a pattern of casual sexual encounters and not that he and Metzen shared a dwelling or had a 

“dating relationship” as required under the statute.

¶ 33 The question when reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, 

after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, “any rational trier of fact could 

have found the required elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v. Newton, 2018 IL 122958, 

¶ 24. This standard of review recognizes that it is the trier of fact’s responsibility to resolve 

conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from facts. People 

v. Brown, 2013 IL 114196, ¶ 48. The reviewing court does not retry the defendant. Newton, 2018 

IL 122958, ¶ 24. Thus, we will only overturn a conviction where “the evidence is so unreasonable, 

improbable, or unsatisfactory” that guilt is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

¶ 34 To support the conviction for aggravated domestic battery, the State had to prove that

defendant caused great bodily harm to Metzen during his commission of domestic battery. 720 

ILCS 5/12-3.3(a) (West 2014). Domestic battery occurs when someone knowingly and without 

lawful justification causes bodily harm to a “family or household member.” 720 ILCS 5/12-

3.2(a)(1) (West 2014). 
No. 1-18-2299 

- 12 - 

¶ 35 The definition of a “family or household member” in section 112A-3 of the Code of 

Criminal Procedure of 1963 includes “persons who have or have had a dating or 

engagement relationship,” but specifically excludes “a casual acquaintanceship [or] ordinary 

fraternization between 2 individuals in business or social contexts.” 725 ILCS 5/112A-3(3) (West 

2014). This court has described a “dating relationship” as one that is “more serious and intimate 

than casual,” and as a “serious courtship.” Alison C. v. Westcott, 343 Ill. App. 3d 648, 653 (2003). 

In turn, a “serious courtship” has been described as “an established relationship with a significant 

romantic focus.” People v. Young, 362 Ill. App. 3d 843, 851 (2005). 

¶ 36 After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find a rational trier 

of fact could have found defendant and Metzen had a dating relationship. Metzen testified that she 

and defendant began a “dating relationship” in June 2014. After one year of dating, she and 

defendant began living together in defendant’s apartment. Metzen had a key to both the apartment 

building and the apartment, which she testified defendant gave to her, and kept personal belongings 

there. Officer Giron testified Metzen gave keys to police to let them inside to arrest defendant in 

December 2015. Giron also testified that while at the apartment, Metzen collected items of 

clothing. Metzen testified she “loved” defendant, was with him on his birthday and Christmas, and 

he helped her with the intimate act of removing a wart from her foot. Taken as a whole, the 

evidence that defendant and Metzen dated for over a year before she moved in with him, she lived 

with him for months, she had a key to and personal items at his apartment, and spent time with 

him on his birthday and Christmas support a finding that they had an “established relationship with 

a significant romantic focus.” Id.; People v. Smith, 185 Ill. 2d 532, 541 (1999) (“The testimony of 

a single witness, if it is positive and the witness credible, is sufficient to convict.”).
No. 1-18-2299 

- 13 - 

¶ 37 Nevertheless, citing People v. Young, 362 Ill. App. 3d 843 (2005), and People v. Howard, 

2012 IL App (3d) 100925, defendant argues the evidence shows his and Metzen’s relationship was 

casual and primarily sexual, not a “serious courtship” or “established relationship with a significant 

romantic focus” required for a dating relationship under section 5/112A-3(3). Young and Howard

are distinguishable.

¶ 38 In Young, the court determined there was no evidence of “a romantic element” in the 

defendant’s relationship with the victim where he had only tried to kiss her once and they spent 

the night at the same homeless shelter. Young, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 852. In Howard, both the 

defendant and the victim denied dating each other despite having 15 sexual encounters over a year 

and a half. Howard, 2012 IL App (3d) 100925, ¶ 5. The victim stated their relationship was 

“strictly sexual,” and the defendant considered it “a series of one-night stands.” (Internal quotation 

marks omitted.) Id. Furthermore, the defendant and the victim “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.” Id. 

¶ 39 In contrast to those cases, here, Metzen testified that she and defendant were in a “dating 

relationship,” and that they lived together. Defendant and Metzen agreed that she had a key to the 

building and kept some of her belongings at the apartment she alleged they lived in together.

Defendant’s landlord saw Metzen at the apartment several times. The evidence showed 

defendant’s mother and cousin picked up Metzen on various occasions to allow defendant to spend 

time with her, including on Christmas, and defendant alleged Metzen became jealous when he 

spoke to another girl that night. Defendant’s mother, Galich, testified that defendant told her he 
No. 1-18-2299 

- 14 - 

“met a girl,” she met Metzen multiple times, and she believed defendant had a “type” based on 

Metzen’s physical similarities to his ex-wife, Gardner. 

¶ 40 In his reply brief, defendant contends he is not challenging the court’s factual findings on 

the credibility of the witnesses but rather its determination that a relationship that is not a formal 

dating relationship is the type of serious courtship contemplated by the statute. However, nothing 

in the statute or the cases cited by defendant requires that a dating relationship be formalized in 

any way. All the statute requires is that the relationship be more than “a casual acquaintanceship 

[or] ordinary fraternization” (725 ILCS 5/112A-3(3) (West 2014)), which this court has interpreted 

as requiring the relationship be a courtship “more serious and intimate than casual” (Westcott, 343 

Ill. App. 3d at 653). We find the evidence amply supports the trial court’s finding that defendant 

and Metzen had a “dating relationship” as contemplated under the statute. 725 ILCS 5/112A3(b)(3). 

¶ 41 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. 

¶ 42 Affirmed.