1 

2020 IL App (5th) 190054-U 

NO. 5-19-0054 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the 

 ) Circuit Court of 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Williamson County. 

 ) 

v. ) No. 16-CF-285 

 ) 

NATHAN SCOTT KING, ) Honorable 

 ) Brian D. Lewis, 

Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court. 

 Justices Overstreet and Boie concurred in the judgment. 

 

 ORDER

¶ 1 Held: We find the record is insufficient to determine whether King’s counsel was 

ineffective for not introducing a Child Advocacy Center interview and for not 

calling a witness to explain how photographs submitted by the State were found on

the server of King’s employer. The trial court did not err in permitting the State to

 reopen its case-in-chief to admit proof of King’s age at the time of the alleged 

offense.

¶ 2 Following a bench trial, the defendant Nathan Scott King was convicted of one count of 

predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1) (West 2016)). The trial 

court sentenced him to 15 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). On appeal, King 

raises several issues challenging his conviction. King first claims that his counsel was ineffective

for failing to introduce the victim’s Child Advocacy Center interview into evidence. King next 

asserts that his counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness to testify regarding photographs 

NOTICE

Decision filed 03/17/20. The 

text of this decision may be 

changed or corrected prior to 

the filing of a Peti ion for 

Rehearing or the disposition of 

the same.

NOTICE

This order was filed under 

Supreme Court Rule 23 and 

may not be cited as precedent 

by any party except in the 

limited circumstances allowed 

under Rule 23(e)(1).
2 

submitted by the State that were found on the server of King’s employer. Finally, King challenges 

that the trial court erred in permitting the State to reopen its case-in-chief to admit proof of King’s 

age after the State had rested its case-in-chief. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The State charged Nathan Scott King with two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault

of a child, a Class X felony (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1) (West 2016)). Count I of the criminal

information alleged that King placed his tongue on the sex organ of R.S. for the purpose of the 

sexual arousal of King or R.S. Count II alleged that King placed his finger on the sex organ of R.S.

for the purpose of the sexual arousal of King or R.S. Both counts alleged that King was over 17 

and R.S. was under 13. King was convicted of count I at a bench trial. Count II was dismissed 

following defense counsel’s motion for a directed verdict after the presentation of the State’s 

evidence. 

¶ 5 On appeal, King has not challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him at trial. 

The following is a summary of the evidence at trial along with the facts necessary to resolve King’s 

points on appeal. 

¶ 6 The victim R.S., her mother Karissa, and R.S.’s father, Ryan, lived across the street from 

King. Karissa testified that R.S. and King’s daughter, M.K., would play together and have 

sleepovers. On June 16, 2016, R.S., who was six years old at the time, and M.K. had a sleepover 

at King’s house. That night, the two girls laid down on the living room floor, and M.K. fell asleep. 

R.S. testified that she stayed awake because she “wanted her parents.” R.S. told this to King, who 

was in the kitchen at the time. R.S. testified that King then came into the living room, pulled down 

R.S.’s pants, and licked her “butt.” When asked at trial where her “butt” was on her body, R.S. 

pointed between her legs to her vaginal area. After King quit licking her, R.S. pulled her pants up.
3 

¶ 7 According to mother’s testimony, King texted Karissa and told her that R.S. was sad. 

Karissa sent Ryan to King’s house, and Ryan brought R.S. home. Karissa observed that R.S. was 

sleepy and “kind of sad,” but thought she was just homesick. Karissa and Ryan tucked R.S. into 

bed, and Karissa testified R.S. needed a few extra hugs. The next morning, Karissa woke up and 

went to work. 

¶ 8 Ryan testified that he was eating cereal in the kitchen when R.S. came in and licked his 

neck. Ryan told R.S. that she should not lick people, and R.S. replied, “Oh, well. Maddy’s daddy 

licked me last night.” Ryan asked if R.S. could indicate where King licked R.S., and she pointed 

to her “private section.” Ryan was concerned, so he took R.S. into the living room and began 

asking her questions. Ryan recorded their conversation on his cell phone. Ryan also called Karissa 

and asked her to come home. When Karissa arrived, Ryan met Karissa outside and told her what 

had happened. Karissa went inside, talked with R.S., and recorded their conversation.

1

 

¶ 9 Karissa took the recorded conversation she made and went to the police. Karissa and Ryan 

then took R.S. to the hospital for a sexual assault examination. As part of the examination, R.S.’s 

external labia and surrounding areas were swabbed. The swab was packaged in a sterile container 

and given to Detective Barbie Baraddy. Several days later, Karissa took R.S. to the Child 

Advocacy Center (CAC) for an interview. 

¶ 10 Prior to trial, defense counsel had filed a motion to have the victim’s CAC interview 

transcribed. The motion indicated that the State had disclosed an audio/visual copy of the CAC 

interview and that a transcription would be useful to the court and counsel. The trial court ordered 

that the CAC interview be transcribed and that an original “shall be filed with the court, with copies 

1

The recorded conversations of Ryan and R.S. and Karissa and R.S. were admitted into evidence 

by stipulation of the parties, but are not a part of the record on appeal. 
4 

to the State and Defense Attorneys.” The transcript of the CAC interview, however, was never

filed with the trial court. 

¶ 11 At the commencement of the bench trial October 21, 2018, during opening statement, 

defense counsel began discussing the CAC interview and why it was important to King’s case. 

The State objected and stated that it did not intend to play the CAC interview, and that no motion 

to admit the CAC interview into evidence had been filed with the court.

2 Defense counsel 

responded that she believed the trial court could hear the CAC interview during the course of a 

bench trial and offered legal authority in support of her argument. The trial court agreed that a 

hearing needed to be held prior to the introduction of the CAC interview, but told the parties 

“[w]e’ll cross that bridge when we get there.” 

¶ 12 Before cross-examining R.S., defense counsel stated she intended to use the CAC interview

transcript for impeachment purposes, and the trial court said: “Well, why don’t we get there.”

Defense counsel then proceeded to question R.S., who testified that she did not remember the 

interview at the CAC and had not seen the recording of the interview. During a recess in the State’s 

case, the trial court informed the parties that it had “some thoughts on the CAC interview.” Defense 

counsel, however, informed the trial court that she was not going to seek to admit the CAC 

interview into evidence. No explanation was offered by defense counsel regarding her decision to 

forgo using the CAC interview. 

¶ 13 At trial, the State also introduced a series of photographs obtained from the server of King’s 

employer. These photographs were obtained as a result of a contact made to Detective Baraddy on 

June 23, 2016, by King’s employer. King’s employer had conducted an independent search, which 

yielded the discovery of photographs which the employer suspected might be helpful in the 

2

725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2016) requires a hearing outside the presence of a jury.
5 

criminal investigation. Detective Baraddy sent King’s employer a subpoena, and Detective 

Baraddy received various documents, including 11 photographs. The photographs were evidently 

discovered in King’s work email, but Detective Baraddy did not know if they were from the inbox 

or had been deleted. Defense counsel stipulated that the photographs came from King’s employer 

but requested additional foundation regarding their admissibility into evidence. Karissa and R.S. 

identified R.S. in several of the photographs which were taken in King’s house. Neither Karissa 

nor R.S. knew who took the photographs. The photographs of R.S. all focused on R.S.’s clothed 

crotch or backside. None of the photographs showed her face. When the State moved to admit the 

photographs into evidence, defense counsel did not object. 

¶ 14 The State also presented three witnesses from the Illinois State Police Crime Lab to testify 

about the DNA findings from the sexual assault examination kit. Based on the crime lab witnesses’ 

testimony, the male DNA identified in the swab taken from R.S. matched King’s DNA. The 

witnesses, however, could not verify the fluid or part of King’s body that produced the DNA 

sample. 

¶ 15 At the close of the State’s evidence, King moved for a directed verdict on both counts of 

predatory criminal sexual assault of a child. The State agreed that count II should be dismissed, 

and the trial court dismissed count II. With respect to count I, King argued that R.S.’s report of the 

offense lacked detail and credibility. The State countered that it had met its burden. King added 

that the State’s DNA evidence did not support the allegation. The following conversation then 

occurred between the trial court, defense counsel, and the State: 

 “THE COURT: The question I have on a Motion for a Directed Verdict, at 

this time, I have nothing to indicate the age of the defendant. 

 [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You have what, Judge? 
6 

 [THE STATE]: Your Honor, we did put in–[Y]our Honor, I move to reopen. 

I believe I can at this point in time.

 THE COURT: Ms. Burger?

 [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I’m objecting, Judge. She had– 

 THE COURT: I think there is case law that allows the reopening. On this 

situation, I’m going to allow it.” 

¶ 16 The State then recalled Detective Baraddy, who testified that as part of her investigation, 

she spoke with King, who was born on September 14, 1972, and was 43 years old at time of the 

offense. The State also introduced King’s passport into evidence which verified his date of birth.

Defense counsel did not ask Detective Baraddy any additional questions. The trial court took the 

motion for a directed verdict under advisement. The trial recessed for the day so that the trial court 

could listen to the recorded conversations between Karissa and R.S. and Ryan and R.S. When the 

trial resumed the next day, the trial court denied King’s motion for a directed verdict. In the 

defense’s case-in-chief, King presented a DNA expert who indicated that it was plausible that 

King’s DNA found on R.S. could have been the result of a transfer from King’s bedsheets or 

bathroom towels, King’s phone or iPad if R.S. had used them, or R.S.’s hands, if she had King’s 

DNA on her hands and scratched herself. The expert admitted that clothing is a barrier to DNA 

transfer.

¶ 17 King also testified to the events of June 16, 2016, and denied placing his tongue on R.S.’s 

sex organ. As to the photographs submitted by the State, King testified he did not believe he took 

the pictures. He stated that his daughter and R.S. often played with his phone and iPad. He believed 

that either he or M.K. accidentally took the photographs. He also testified that his personal devices 

were synced together with his work devices, and when he loads an “App” or a photograph on one 
7 

device, “it goes to all the computers.” King could not explain why the photographs submitted by 

the State were transferred from his employer’s server to his personal email. 

¶ 18 At the close of all the evidence, the trial court took the case under advisement. On 

November 6, 2018, the trial court found King guilty on count I. Following a sentencing hearing

January 11, 2019, the trial court sentenced King to 15 years in IDOC, with 3 years mandatory 

supervised release. This appeal follows. 

¶ 19 ANALYSIS

¶ 20 Under the circumstances of this case, our analysis for King’s points on appeal alleging that 

defense counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce the CAC interview and failing to call a 

witness to testify about the photographs found on his employer’s server is the same. Therefore, we 

will address these claims together. 

¶ 21 In order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that 

counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that there is a 

reasonable probability that but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding 

would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 (1984). Defendants 

are generally required to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal if the claims 

are apparent in the record. People v. Veach, 2017 IL 120649, ¶ 46. Claims that could have been 

raised and considered on direct review are deemed procedurally defaulted. Veach, 2017 IL 120649, 

¶ 47. Nonetheless, ineffective assistance of counsel claims may sometimes be better suited for 

collateral proceedings when the record is incomplete or inadequate to resolve the claim on direct 

review. Veach, 2017 IL 120649, ¶ 46. Procedural default does not preclude a defendant from 

raising a claim on collateral review that depended upon facts not found in the record. Veach, 2017 

IL 120649, ¶ 47. 
8 

¶ 22 King first challenges that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce the 

victim’s CAC interview into evidence. Here, the record is inadequate to resolve this claim on direct 

review. Neither the recorded CAC interview nor the transcript of the interview are part of the 

record. While the record shows that defense counsel had a copy of the CAC interview and the 

transcript, she did not use, or attempt to use, the recorded CAC interview or transcript at trial. 

Thus, we have no ability to review either the recorded interview or the transcript of the interview. 

The record is also silent as to counsel’s reasons for deciding not to use the CAC interview or 

transcript for impeachment of R.S. or in King’s case-in-chief. Cf. Veach, 2017 IL 120649, ¶ 51 

(finding ineffective assistance of counsel claim was proper on direct review and remanding to 

appellate court to consider ineffective assistance of counsel claim where the record contained

counsel’s reason for stipulating to the admission of recorded statements). Therefore, we are unable 

to review whether the admission of the CAC interview would have affected the outcome of the 

trial, or whether defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. 

¶ 23 King also asserted that counsel was unprepared to admit the CAC interview into evidence 

as evidenced by the fact that defense counsel did not file a motion pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/115-10 

(West 2016). At a bench trial, however, a motion and a separate hearing under 725 ILCS 5/115-

10 (West 2016) may not be required, depending on the circumstances of the case. See, e.g., People 

v. Burnett, 239 Ill. App. 3d 582, 586 (3rd Dist. 1993); People v. Balle, 234 Ill. App. 3d 804, 816 

(1st Dist. 1992); and People v. Roy, 201 Ill. App. 3d 166, 183 (4th Dist. 1990). In the present case, 

the trial court indicated that it would take up the CAC interview’s admission “when we get there.” 

During a recess in the State’s case, the trial court also stated it had “some thoughts on the CAC 

interview.” Defense counsel, however, indicated to the trial court that she was not going to ask to 

introduce the CAC interview. From the record before this court, we cannot say that defense counsel 
9 

was unprepared and unable to seek admission of the CAC interview. Indeed, the trial court was 

apparently willing to offer defense counsel the opportunity to address the issue of whether the 

CAC interview was admissible during the trial. For whatever reason, defense counsel chose not to 

pursue the introduction of the CAC interview. 

¶ 24 Next, King claims that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness to 

explain how the photographs introduced by the State were found on his employer’s server. Again, 

the record is inadequate to address this claim. Defense counsel stipulated to the fact that the 

photographs were obtained pursuant to a subpoena from King’s employer. When the State offered 

the photographs into evidence, there was no objection by defense counsel. King argues that an 

unnamed expert or an employee of King’s employer could have testified about which of King’s 

devices took the photographs, which device sent the photographs to his employer’s server, and 

how the photographs were “received, processed, and stored.” The record, however, is completely 

silent as to what evidence, if any, an expert or employee of King’s employer could offer.

Furthermore, the record does not tell us whether defense counsel had interviewed any witnesses 

or investigated this issue for which King now claims defense counsel was ineffective.

¶ 25 Based on the record before this court, we are unable to determine whether defense 

counsel’s decisions were trial strategy or deficient performance, or whether the evidence might 

have altered the outcome of the proceedings. In this case, King’s claims of ineffective assistance 

of counsel are better suited for resolution in a collateral proceeding by filing a petition for 

postconviction relief. In a collateral proceeding under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 

5/122-1 et seq. (West 2016)), both King and the State would have an opportunity to develop a 

factual record bearing on each of King’s issues. See People v. Bew, 228 Ill. 2d 122, 135 (2008). 

As such, we decline to review King’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct review 
10 

and note King may raise these claims under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act where he may have 

the opportunity to develop a factual record bearing precisely on his issues. See People v. McGath, 

2017 IL App (4th) 150608, ¶ 43. 

¶ 26 Finally, King challenges that the trial court erred in permitting the State to reopen its 

evidence to admit proof of King’s age after the State had rested its case-in-chief. This claim was

not, however, properly preserved for appellate review. While defense counsel objected during trial 

to the reopening of the State’s evidence, this claim was not included in King’s posttrial motion.

Thus, this claim is reviewable only for plain error. People v. Ward, 154 Ill. 2d 272, 294 (1992).

Plain error review may be invoked in criminal cases where the evidence is closely balanced or 

where the error is of such magnitude that the defendant was denied a fair trial. Ward, 154 Ill. 2d at 

294. If King is correct that the trial court should not have allowed the State to reopen its case, then 

the State would have insufficient evidence to prove King guilty of predatory criminal sexual 

assault. Therefore, this court will address King’s argument for plain error. See People v. Berrier, 

362 Ill. App. 3d 1153, 1162 (2nd Dist. 2006). 

¶ 27 Generally, Illinois law recognizes the trial court’s power to allow a litigant to reopen their

case in appropriate circumstances. Berrier, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 1162; People v. Canulli, 341 Ill.

App. 3d 361, 367 (4th Dist. 2003). Whether a case may be reopened for further evidence is within 

the sound discretion of the trial court. People v. Bennett, 331 Ill. App. 3d 198, 201 (5th Dist. 2002). 

The trial court may do so even after the defendant has moved for a directed verdict. Bennett, 331 

Ill. App. 3d at 202. Absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court’s decision will not be overturned 

on appeal. Bennett, 331 Ill. App. 3d at 201. In considering a motion to reopen the case, the trial 

court considers a variety of factors, including: (1) the existence of an excuse for the failure to 

introduce the evidence, e.g., it was inadvertent or a calculated risk; (2) surprise or unfair prejudice 
11 

to the adverse party; (3) the importance of the new evidence to the movant’s case; and (4) whether 

any cogent reasons exist to deny the request. People v. Mandarino, 2013 IL App (1st) 111772, 

¶ 44; People v. Ruppel, 303 Ill. App. 3d 885, 894 (4th Dist. 1999). 

¶ 28 The record shows that the failure to introduce King’s age was due to inadvertence. When

the trial court stated that it had no evidence as to King’s age, the State responded, “Your Honor, 

we did put in–[Y]our Honor, I move to reopen. I believe I can at this point in time.” Apparently, 

the State believed it had introduced evidence of King’s age at the time of the offense during the 

State’s case-in-chief. Upon realizing its mistake, the State moved to reopen its evidence to prove 

King’s age at the time of the offense. Proof that King was over the age of 17 at the time of the 

offense was crucial to the State’s case because it was a fact required to prove King guilty of 

predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1) (West 2016)). Moreover,

King cannot claim that the evidence of his age surprised him or caused him to suffer unfair 

prejudice. He was 43 at the time of the offense and his age was uncontested at trial. Finally, no 

cogent reasons exist to deny the State’s request to reopen its evidence. The record demonstrates 

that the State inadvertently failed to prove an uncontested, crucial fact prior to resting its case-inchief. “[A] criminal trial is not a game to win or lose, but a search for truth and justice. Every effort 

should be made to achieve justice, whether that results in the conviction or the acquittal of the 

defendant.” [Internal citations omitted.] Bennett, 331 Ill. App. 3d at 202. 

¶ 29 King argues that the trial court acted as an advocate for the State by noting that the trial 

court did not have proof of King’s age at the time of the offense. We disagree. “As a general 

proposition[,] it is never improper for a judge to aid in bringing out the truth in a fair and impartial 

manner.” People v. Franceschini, 20 Ill. 2d 126, 131-32 (1960). It is the trial court’s duty to see 

that justice is done, and, where justice is liable to fail because a certain fact has not been developed 
12 

or a certain line of inquiry has not been pursued, it is the trial court’s duty to interpose and, either 

by suggestions to counsel or an examination conducted by the trial court itself, avoid the 

miscarriage of justice. Franceschini, 20 Ill. 2d at 132. In doing so, the trial court must not forget 

the function of the judge and assume that of the advocate. Franceschini, 20 Ill. 2d at 132. Here, 

the trial court did become an advocate for the State. The trial court merely pointed out that it heard 

no evidence regarding King’s age when considering whether to enter a directed verdict for King. 

The State, realizing its mistake, moved to reopen its case-in-chief without any suggestion to do so

from the trial court. Nothing in the record indicates that the trial court abandoned the role of judge 

and assumed the role of advocate for the State. Point III is denied.

¶ 30 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm King’s conviction. 

¶ 31 Affirmed.