FIRST DIVISION March 31, 2008

No. 1-06- 1214 In re D.H, a Mi

nor, (The Peo ple of the Stat e of Ill in ois, Petitioner-A

ppel lee, v. D.H., Responde

nt-A ppel l an t). )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) A ppe al f rom the C i rcui t Court of Coo k C oun

ty No. 05 JD 5151
Ho no r ab le No r ee n M ar ie D aly, Judge Presi

din g.

PR ESIDI NG

JU STI CE

CA HI LL de l iv ered th e op in i on

of th e c our t: Responden

t D.H., a 12-yea

r-old boy , appeals

the trial court 's adj udic ation of del in quency an d ward sh

i p af ter f indi ng h im gui l ty of two counts of

cri m ina l sex ual ab use of th e vi ctim D.F., a 10-year-old girl

. The trial

court im posed a man

dator y term

of 5 y ears' probati on and ordered respondent to register for 10 years a s a sex ual off ender. Responden

t appealed. W

e aff irm but modi fy the dis positi onal order t o refl

ect a sin gle count of crim

in al sexual abuse. Th e Sta te f il ed a p eti ti on f or a f ind ing of de l inq ue ncy an d adj udi ca ti on of wa rds hi p on Sept ember 1, 20 05, under sect ion 5-520 of the Juveni le Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/5-520 (West 2004)). The petition al leged respondent was del

in quent on two co unts: (1) engagi ng i n sex ual conduct "by

the use of f

orce" when h

e "knowi ngl y rub bed the v ictim 's crotch1-06-1214

2

for t he pu rp os e o f sexua l aro usa l or gr at ifi cat ion" in violat ion o f sect ion 1 2- 15( a) (1 ) o f the Cr iminal C o de o f 19 61 ( Co de ) ( 72 0 I LC S 5 /1 2- 15 ( a) ( 1) ( We st 20 04 ) ) ; a nd ( 2) kn o win gly
comm ittin g sexual conduct by

rubbi ng the crotch of the vi

ctim who was at lea st 9 but under 17 y ea rs of ag e w hi l e h e w as under 17 y ea

rs of ag e " f or th e p urp ose

of sexu al gra ti f i ca ti on or ar ou sal" in violat ion o f sect ion 1 2- 15( b) o f the Co de ( 720 ILC S 5 /1 2- 15( b) ( West 200 4) ). The petition al leged that respondent comm itted both counts again st the same vi ctim on the sam

e date, Au gust 21 , 2005. Resp ond ent and a not her minor, 15- year- old A.R. , w er e t ried joint ly i n a benc h t rial. T he vi cti m tes ti f i ed tha t sh e a nd thr ee othe r gi rl s w ere wa l ki ng towa rd h er h ous e a t ab out 7: 30 p .m . on Au gu st 21 , 20 05
. Sh e s aid it wa s g et t ing da r k a t t ha t t ime. Fo ur bo ys a pp r o ac he d t he m, including A. R. and r esp ond ent . O ne o f the boys, kno wn as Cha, ra n t o t he vict im's hous e and block ed t he do or so she c ou ld no t go inside. R esp ond ent and A. R. t hen r an t ow ar d t he gir ls, who b eg an ru n n in g a

wa y . Th e v i cti m sa i d s h e s topp ed

ru n n i n g w h en on e of h er f ri en ds b um pe d i n to he r. Re sp o nd en t sa id A
. R. t he n g r ab be d h er ar m an d c alle d h er "a bu zz do wn , " a na me ref erri ng to som eb ody wh o suck s "a

boy 'sstuf

f ." A .R. as ked th

e vi ctim , "A

re y ou suc ki ng or a re you f ucki ng? " The v

ictim testifi ed that respondent pushed h er to the ground. A.R. li

fted up her ankl es and hel d her legs i

n the air, continui

ng to ask her, "Are you fucki ng or are you suck in

g?" Resp ond ent t hen st ra ddled her , w ith his legs on e ither side o f her st omac h. S he sa id re spo ndent
wa s t r ying t o un zip t he zip pe ro f his p an t s. Be fo r e h e c o uld do so , o ne o f t he gir ls p us he d h im away . A.R. continued to hold the v ictim 's l egs i n the ai r. The vi ctim said respondent then f

ound a1-06-1214

3

rock o n the ground. Responden t po ked the rock in the

vi ctim's v agi

na through her un

derwear whi le A .R. co ntinued to hold her legs. She sai d respo ndent poked her vagi na "about t wo t im

es." T he vic t im sa id wh ile t his wa s h ap pe nin g, sh e w as wig gl ing , t r ying t o ge t fr ee an d t elli ng t he bo ys to leav e her alone. She eventuall y was ab le to kick A.R. in the arm and get up. She heard A.R. say, " Oh we was just playing. We was just playing." The victim said s he had kno wn r esp ond ent through fri

ends f or about a year when

the in ci dent occurred. When she got home, sh e told her mother, who cal

led the poli

ce. Wh en two polic e off

ic ers arriv ed at her home , she told them what ha d ha ppen ed. On cross -ex am

ina tion , the v

i ctim sai d sh e coul d not rem em be r the n am es of the of f i cers who cam e to her home. The v

ictim adm itted she f irst told the poli

ce that the in

ci dent happen

ed at 9 p.m., not 7:30 p.m. She sai d she di d not use the word "vagin a" when she spoke with the pol

ic e but h eard i t la ter f rom h er m other. Of f i ce r M cD an i els, wh ose f i rs t n am e i s n ot ap pa re n t in th e rec ord , te sti

f i ed h e m et w ith the vi ctim at about 9 p. m. on the n

igh t o f the i nci dent. He said the vi

ctim report ed that resp ondent rub

be d a rock b

etween h er l egs agai ns t her c rotch. The trial court determi

ned that the State est abl

ished responden

t's del in quency bey ond a
reas onab l e doubt. The c ourt foun

d the vi ctim 'stesti

m ony to be credi

bl e an d m ostly uni m peac he d. The court specif

ic al ly found responde

nts cl early had knowledge of s exual gratif ic ation an d arousal as sho wn by the t heir r epe at ed u se o f the t er ms "fuck ing" and "su cking. " The co ur t also fou nd t hat A.R. 's co mment as t he vict im ran awa y that t hey wer e "just playing" wa s "clea rly indicat ive that t hey knew what they di

d was wrong." The court found the ci rcums tantial

evi dence1-06-1214

4

es tab l i sh ed th at r es pon de n t' s a ctswe re f or s ex ua l gr ati f i ca ti on . Th e c our t con cl ud ed , " th e S tate has es tabli

shed bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt the deli

nquen cy of both m

in ors under the charges as charged i n the respecti

ve peti tions." See People ex

rel. Dev in e v. Stralka , 226 Ill . 2d 445, 456, 87 7 N . E . 2d 41 6 ( 20 07 ) ( "A f ind ing o f gu ilt an d a find ing o f de linq ue nc y ar e t he sa me in a juv en ile del inquency cas e"). The trial court entered a di spositional order, showing responden t was found gui

lty of two
cou nts of cri m ina l sexu al ab us e. The court ord ere d a

man da tory f ive -y ea r ter m of prob ati on unde r se ct ion 5 -7 15( 1) of t he Act (7 05 I LCS 405 /5 -7 15( 1) (Wes t 200 4) ) ( a minim um t er m of five years' probation is

man dato ry f or a min or found guilty of a f

orcibl e fel ony). The trial court also
or der ed 3 0 ho ur s o f unpa id co mmunity ser vice, mandat or y scho ol at t enda nce a nd r egist ra t ion and t re at ment a s a juve nile sex o ffender . T he co ur t pr ohibit ed r esp ond ent fro m having po rno gr aphy or contac t with ch

il dren und er age 12. Responden

t argues on appeal: (1) the State fai led to prove bey

ond a reasonabl

e doubt that h e a cte d f or th e p ur pos e of h i s s ex ua l gr ati f i ca ti on or a rou sa l an d h i s of f en se sh oul d b e red uc ed to si mpl e battery; (2) the sex

off ender regi stration and not if ic ation sch

em e as am ended i n 2006 violat es his st at e and feder al co nst itu t ional r ight s; and (3 ) t his co ur t must chang e t he co ur t 's dis positi onal order t o show that he was del in quent based on one , not t wo, co unts of cri mi nal
sex ual ab use . Responden

t fi rst argues that t he State's evi dence was

in suf fi ci ent to pr ove that he i

ntended to derive sex ual grati f i cation or arous al

f rom h i s ac ts aga

ins t the v i ctim . In r eviewing a challenge t o t he su ffi ciency o f the evidenc e, we c ons ider t he evide nce in a1-06-1214

5

l i ght m ost fa vorab l e to the pros ecuti

on. In r e Ma t t hew K. , 355 Ill . App. 3d 652, 655, 823 N.E. 2d 25 2 ( 20 05 ). W

e dete rm in e wh eth er a r ati on al tri er of f ac t coul d hav

e f oun d th e e ss en ti al el em en ts of th e of f en se beyond a

reas onab l e doubt. In r e Ma t t hew K. , 35 5 I ll. A pp . 3d at 65 5. "We will not substitute our judgme nt for the j udgme

nt of the trier of f

act unless the j udgme

nt was in herently im plausi bl e or u nreasonabl

e." In r e Ma t t hew K. , 355 Ill . App. 3d at 655. The elem ents of crim

in al sex ual abuse are stated in section 12-15 o f the Code (720 I LCS 5/12-15 (West 2004)). The fi rst of the two counts again st respondent was bas ed on section 12- 15(a)( 1) of

the C ode, provi di

ng that the s ex

ual cond uct occur red th rough use or threa t of f orce. 720 ILCS 5/12-15(a)(1) (West 2004). T hi s off ense is a Class 4 f

el ony (720 ILC S 5/12-15(d) (West 2004) ), punishable b y n ot less than

one year or more t han three years i n prison (730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(7) ( West 2004)). The second count was ba sed on secti on 12-15(b) of the Code, pr ovid ing t hat t he se xual co nduc t was per pet ra t ed by a p er so n unde r a ge 1 7 ag ainst a pe rso n who was at least age 9 but under age 17. 7 20 ILCS 5/12 -15(b) ( West 2004). This off ense i s a Class

A
m i sdem ea nor (72 0 IL CS 5/1 2- 1 5(d) (W

es t 200 4)) , pu ni shab l e by a s en ten ce of im prison m en t f or l ess than one y ear (7 30 IL CS 5/5 -8-3(a

)(1) (W est 200 4)). Sexu al co nduc t is "any intent ional o r k now ing t ou ching o r fo ndling by the victim o r t he
acc use d, eithe r d irect ly or t hro ugh c lot hing, o f the sex o rg ans, anus or bre ast of t he vict im or t he accused, or any

part o f the body of a ch

il d under 13 y

ears of age *** f

or t he purpose of sex

ual grati f i cation or arous al

of th e vi ctim or the ac cus ed." 720 IL

CS 5/1 2-12(e ) (We st 2004 )). "Intent to ar ouse or sat is fy sexual desi res m ay be establ ished by circum

stantial evi dence, which the trier o f f

act may consi

der in i nf erring defen

dant's in tent fro m h

is conduct." Peo ple v.1-06-1214

6

Kol ton , 347 Ill . App. 3d 142, 148, 806 N.E. 2d 1175 (2004). "[T]he issue of i ntent of sex

ual gr at ifi cat ion in minors must be de t er mined on a cas e- by-cas e bas is. T her e ca n be no bright -line test ." In r e Ma t t hew K. , 355 Ill . App. 3d at 656-57. "When the accused i s an adul

t, a fact fi nder can i nf er that an accused in

tended sexual gratifi

cation." In r e Ma t t hew K. , 355 Ill . App. 3d at 65 5. "H o we ve r , 'it is no t jus t ified t o impu t e t he sa me int en t int o a c hild 's a ct io n t ha t o ne co uld reasonabl y i mpute i nto t he actions of an

adul t.' ” In r e Ma t t hew K. , 355 Ill . App. 3d at 655, quot in g In re A.J.H. , 210 Ill . App. 3d 65, 72, 568 N.E. 2d 964 (1991). St atemen ts that show a consci ousness of

guil t can support t he i

nf erence that the accused i

ntended to gratify

hi s sex ual des i res. People v . C.H. , 237 Il l . App. 3d 46 2, 473, 6 03 N.E.2 d 1280 (1992 ). Her e, t he vict im's tes t imony show ed t hat she w as fo rc ed t o lie o n her back on t he gr ou nd while A.R. re st ra ined her . R esp ond ent t oo k ad vant age of he r incap acit y by stra ddling her , t rying to unzi p hi s zi pper and pokin

g her crotch with a rock. The i nci dent began

with a sexual referen ce to a "buzz down " and conti nued i n that vei n as A .R. repeatedly

asked the vi

ctim if she was "fuc kin g" or "suckin

g." Under these ci

rcums tances, a f

act fi nder could c oncl

ude bey ond a
rea sonab l e d oubt tha

t the 12- y ea r-ol d re sp ond en t inte nd ed to deri ve sexu al arou sa l or gr ati f i ca ti on when he f orcibl y poked the 10-y

ear-old vi ctim's crotch wi

th a rock. As the trial

judge noted, A .R. 's de f en si ve com m en t tha t he an d re sp ond en t were " j us t play ing " s how ed

a c ons ci ous ne ssof gu ilt
. T his fu r t he rsu pp o r t s t he infe r en ce t ha t r es po nd en t 's a ct io ns w er e d elibe r at ely s ex ua l in nature. Under these ci

rcums tances, we bel

ie ve the State establi

shed the el

em ents of cri mi nal
sex ual ab use bey ond a reas onab l e doubt. Responden

t argues that under sim

il ar circum stances Il li nois court s hav

e decl in ed to inf er1-06-1214

7

t hat minor r esp ond ent s inte nded t o d er ive sexu al gr at ifi cat ion fro m their act s. H e r elies o n In re A.J.H. , where thi s court r eversed the tri al court ’s f in din g that a 13-year-old f

em ale bab ys itter
comm itted aggravated crim

in al sexual abuse of a 5-yea r-old boy under wha

t is n ow section 12- 16(c)( 2)(i) of th

e Code (720 IL CS 5/1 2-16(c )(2)(i

) (We st 2004 )). In re A.J.H. , 210 Ill . App. 3d at 65-66. T hi s court disagreed, concl udin g that t he State fai

led to prove that t he responden t acted f or sex ual grati f i cati on or arous al

when sh e touched the b oy' s peni s f or four to f

ive sec onds
. In re A.J.H. , 21 0 Il

l . A pp. 3d a t 72. Th e c ourt dec l

ined " to im

pute the sa m e i nte nt i nto a ch il d' s a cti on that o ne could reasonably im pute t o t he actions of an adul t. " In re A.J.H. , 210 Il

l . App. 3d a

t 72. Resp ond ent also re lies on In re E.R.E. , w her e t his co ur t re ver sed t he t rial co ur t ’s finding that a 12-year-old b oy was del in quent based on the a

ggravated crim

in al sexual abuse of hi s 6- yea r - o ld n iec e u nd er wh at is no w s ec t io n 1 2- 16 ( c) ( 2) ( i) o f t he Co de ( 72 0 I LC S 5 /1 2- 16 ( c) ( 2) ( i) (We st 2004 )). In re

E.R.E. , 2 45 I ll. App. 3d 6 69, 670 , 6 14 N .E .2 d 13 67 ( 199 3) . T he vict im and her y ounger si ster all

eged the respondent ha

d to uched the v

ictim through her underwear on h er "private part. " In re

E.R.E. , 2 45 I ll. App. 3d a t 671 . T he evide nce s how ed t he gir ls gave inc onsi sten t accoun ts of w he ther th e touch ing took pl

ace an d, i f so, to wha

t exten t. Thi s court
re ver sed t he judg ment o f the t rial co ur t , c onc luding t hat t he St at e failed t o p ro ve t he r esp ond ent sough t sex ual grati f i cation. In re

E.R.E. , 245 Ill . App. 3d at 673-74. "Here, t he ev ide nce i s even wea ker t han t hat pr ese nt ed in [ In re A.J.H. ], i n th at th ere w asn o tes tim

ony re ga rd in g th e l en gth of the all eged to uchi

ng." In re

E.R.E. , 245 Ill . App. 3d at 673. The court al so found the f act that the v i ctim ’s und

erwe ar rem

ai ne d on di m ini sh ed the i nf eren ce of sex ual inten t. In re E.R.E. , 245 Il l . App. 3d a

t 673.1-06-1214

8

T his c as e is leg ally d ist ing uis ha ble fr o m In re A.J.H. and In re E. R.E. In t hos e ca ses, t he
mo re se rio us o ffens e o f aggravated crim in al sexual abuse wa s at issue. Aggravated cri mi nal sexual abuse is a Class 2 f

el ony (720 ILC S 5/12-16(g) (West 2004)), puni shab le by not less than three or more than seven y ears i n pri son (730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(5) (West 2004)). As n ot ed, cri m ina l sex ual ab use i s a l ess seri ous Cl ass 4 f el ony , pun i sh ab l e b y one to thre e y

earsin pr i son. 730 IL CS 5/5 -8-1(a

)(7) (W est 200 4)). The fact s her e ar e also mate rially dif fere nt fro m tho se in In re A.J.H. and In re E.R.E. The vi ctim s' statem en ts i n those two cas es s uf

f ered f rom i nc onsi sten ci es a nd c ontradi

cti ons or w ere cr ed ibly r efu t ed by t he r es po nd en t . He r e, t he co ur t fo un d t he vic t im's t es t imo ny t o be cr ed ible and lar gely unimpeac hed. In In re A.J.H. and In re E.R.E. , t he r e w as no ev ide nc e o f se xu al t alk befo re , d ur ing o r a fte r t he allege d t ou ching. Cru de s exua l refer ence s we re made t hro ugho ut t he
even ts here. There was n

o evi dence that the responden ts in those cases touched thei

r own geni

tal
area s dur ing th ei r contact with the

vi ctim s, as did res ponde

nt h ere i n try ing to un zi p hi s pa nts. Nor were t he v

ictims positioned i

n a sex ual ly suggestiv

e way as was the v

ictim here. Nor was t her e evide nce in In re A.J.H. and In re E.R.E. of t he r esp ond ent s ac t ing as if the y had do ne somethi ng wrong. Here, the attack ended with A .R. maki ng the ex cuse, “we [were] j ust play in g.” The re sult s in In re A.J.H. and In re E.R.E. do not contro l h

ere. Resp ond ent next re lies on In r e Ma t t hew K. wh ere the tri al court f ound a 12- y ea r-ol d b oy comm itted aggravated crim

in al sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/12-16(c)(2)(i) (W est 2002)) o f an

8- y ear-ol d gi rl
. In r e Ma t t hew K. , 355 Ill . App. 3d at 653. The victim said the respondent pl ayed a game w ith her in his bedro om aft er t elling ot her childre n t o lea ve t he r oo m. The boy had t he1-06-1214

9

v i cti m si t on h i s l apwi th h er pa nts down . H e tou ch

ed h er "pri v ate s, " s l i d h i s f in ge r " a l ittle" in to he rva gin a, ga ve he ra " t o ng ue mas sa ge " w it h his t o ng ue , lift ed he rshir t an d g av e h er a " be lly massage." In r e Ma t t hew K. , 355 Ill . App. 3d at 653-54. At t he trial, a chi ld ps yc hiatrist deem

ed "e minen t ly qu alifie d" by t he co ur t , o pin ed t ha t t he r es po nd en t wa s a so cia lly inep t 12

- yea r - o ld whose m ot iv e i n touchin g the vi ctim was uncl ear. The docto r sai d hi s "strong opini on" was that the re sponden

t had no i ntere st i n s ex ual grati f i cation or arous al
. In r e Ma t t hew K. , 355 Ill . App. 3d at 65 4. Despi

te thi s ev i den ce, the tri al

court f ound th e responde

nt gui l ty. In r e Ma t t hew K. , 355 Ill. App . 3 d at 654 . T his co ur t re ver sed t he finding o f the t rial co ur t , c onc luding t hat t he inten t of se xua l grati f i cation coul

d not b e i nf erred f rom th ese acts of the " social

l y def i ci en t" boy
. In r e Ma t t hew K. , 355 Ill . App. 3d at 655. In r e Ma t t hew K. is dist inguishable. The fact s t her e include d a k ey element t hat is absent here—the testim

ony of an ex pert witness wh

o held the "strong opini

on" that in

tent of sexual
ar ou sal o r g ra t ifi

cat ion sho uld no t be at t ribut ed t o t he pa rt icular re spo ndent . H er e, t her e wa s no ev ide nc e, ex pe r t o ro t he r wis e, fr o m wh ich t o dr aw t he infe r en ce t ha t r es po nd en t wa s mo st like ly inc apab l e of sex ual inten t. Re sp on de n t ci

testwo ou

t-of -s tate ca se s to argu e th

at h i s a cti on s s h owe d th

e i n ten t to b ul l y or h um il i ate an oth er pe rs on , n ot to de

ri v e s ex ua l gr ati f i ca ti on . A l th oug h out- of -s tate de ci si on s a re n ot bi ndi ng on Ill in ois court s ( Pauls en v . Cochran , 356 Ill . App. 3d 354, 363, 826 N.E.2d 526 (2005)) , we consider them to assess the m erit of responden

t's cl ai m that he la cked
sex ual inten t. In In re Ky

le O. , t he Ne bra ska Appe llate C ou rt fou nd t hat t he St at e had failed t o p ro ve t he1-06-1214

10

el em en ts o f thi rd -d egre e s ex

ua l as sa ul t wh ere th e 1 4- y ea r-ol d res pon de n t pu ll ed

dow n th e p an ts of a 5-year-old, grabbed the chi ld' s penis and s howed other children "how sm al l i t was.” In re Ky le O. , 14 Ne b. A pp. 61, 63, 703 N.W .2d

909 , 91 1 (2 005 ). Th

e e vi de nc e i nc l uded a l etter f rom t he r es po nd en t 's c o un se lo r , wh o de sc r ibe d h im as "imma t ur e fo rhis a ge " w it h lit t le int er es t in
sex ual matters. In re Ky

le O. , 14 Ne

b. A pp. at 63 -64, 70 3 N.W .2d at 91 2. The Neb rask a court
re lied on In re A.J.H. and In re E.R.E. to support its conclusi on. We be

li eve In re Ky

le O. is dist inguishable. As we saw in In r e Ma t t hew K. , t he r esp ond ent in In re Ky le O. pres en

ted ex pert evidenc e t hat called int o q ues t ion whe t her he wa s su ffi cient ly m at ur e t o infer t hat he so ught
se xu al a r o us al o rgr at ifica t io n fr o m his a ct s. Re sp o nd en t he r e p r es en t ed no su ch ev ide nc e o f his
maturi ty, p roxi m ity to puberty

or sex ual awar eness . In In re Jerry M. , a Califor nia case , t he 11 -year -o ld re spo ndent was char ged wit h felony l ewd touch

ing of the b reas ts of on

e 13-y ear-ol d an d two 12-y

ear-ol d gi rl s. In re Jerry M. , 59 Ca l. App. 4th 289, 294, 69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 148, 150 (1997). T he appel la te court found the State fai led t o s how t hat t he r esp ond ent had t he sp ecific intent t o a ro use himself sexually by t ou ching t he gi rl s. In re Jerry M. , 5 9 Ca l. App . 4 t h at 300 , 6 9 Ca l. Rp t r. 2d a t 154 . T he co ur t fou nd persuasi ve that the vi

ctim s knew Jerry, hi

s conduct was i

n publ ic , during da

yti me in the presence of othe rs, an d the re wa s no attem

pt or opportuni

ty to avoid

detecti on. In re Jerry M. , 59 Ca l. Ap p. 4t h a t 30 0, 69 Ca l. Rp t r . 2d at 15 4. "T he r ec o r d s ho ws Je r r y wa s a br az en 11

- yea r - o ld whose conduct was m

ore consistent wi

th an i ntent to annoy an

d obtain a tt ention tha

n wi th sexual arousal.” In re Jerry M. , 59 Ca l . App. 4th a

t 300, 69 C al . Rptr. 2d a

t 154. Resp ond ent 's ac t s her e go beyond mere bu lly ing, a nnoying o r a t t ent ion- get t ing. A. R. 's1-06-1214

11

co mment, "just kidd ing," unde r t hese circu msta nces do es no t sug ges t mere c hildish tea sing o f the victim. While t he co ur t in In re Jerry M. fou nd t hat t he pu blic natu re of t he allege d lewd t ou ching diminished its s exua l over t one s, t he pu blic natu re of t he gr ou p ac t ion her e incre ase s t he per cep t ion t hat re spo ndent so ught sexu al gr at ifi cat ion. Her e, t he gr ou p o f four boys, including respondent, began

by separatin g the vi ctim from her f rien ds and b locki ng the en trance to her hous e. Thei

r sex ual ref eren cesesc alated f

rom th e sl an g term "buzz d own" to cruder, m

ore explicit r efer ence s. R esp ond ent for ced t he vict im to t he gr ou nd and his co llabor at or gr abbed and spr ead her legs. Resp ond ent t oo k a t ur n at act ing o ut a se xual as sau lt as A.R. wat ched and t he vi ctim struggl ed. In f act, the onl y el em en t missi ng f rom a suc ces sf ul prosecuti on f

or the m ore seri ous offen se cri

mi nal sexual assaul t, a Class 1 f

el ony, was

penetration. See 720 ILCS 5/12-13 (We st 2004 ). A C l ass

1 f el ony i s pun i sh ab l e b y not l ess than 4 or m ore than 15 y earsin pr i son. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(4) (West 2004)). See al so 720 ILCS 5/12-12(f) (West 2004) (" '[s]ex ual penetration' m

eans an y c ontact, however sl

igh t, between the sex organ *** of one person by

an obj ect"). We b el ie ve that sexual

in tent can be reas onabl

y i nf erred from the circum

stantial evi dence in this case. The ev

ide nce supports the concl

usi on that t he b oys pl

ann ed an attack of a sex

ual
n atu re . Th ere w asun

di spute d e v i de n ce

of ag gres si on , n ot ex pl ora ti on th at c oul d b e a ttri b ute d to bu ddi ng cu riosi ty . Th ere wa s s ex ua ll y cl ea r l an gua ge nor mal l y as soc i ate d w ith s ex

ua l arou sa l or gr at ifica t io n. T he r e w as ev ide nc e o f an at t emp t at va gin al t r au ma. T he t r ial c o ur t did no t er rin f in di n g th e S tate es tab l i sh ed th e el em en ts o f cr im in al se x ua l ab us e b ey on d a re as on abl e d oub

t. Resp ond ent next ar gue s t hat t he se x offend er re gist ra t ion and not ifi cat ion sc heme in the1-06-1214

12

Sex Of fen der Regi stration Act (730 ILCS 150/1 et seq. ( We st 20 04 ) ) as ame nd ed in 2 00 6 is
un con sti tuti on al b ec au se it v i ol ate s h

i s d ue pr oce ss an d e qu al pr otecti on

ri gh ts. Both th e S tate and r esp ond ent agr ee t hat t his arg ument is moo t beca use of leg islative a ct ion, elimi nat ing t he requirem ent that juve

ni le s regi ster as adults. See In re R ogel i o S. , 378 Ill . App. 3d 211, 212-13, (2007 ). Re sp ond

en t's f ina l argum en t i s that h e s houl d not ha

ve been f ound gu il ty of two c oun

ts of cri m ina l sexu al ab us e a nd the di sp osi ti ona l orde r m us t be chan ge d to ref l ec t a s ing l e f

ind ing of del in quency . He argues that the count based on section 12-15(b ) of the Code (720 ILCS 5/12- 15 (b ) (W es t 20 04 )) ( “ th e a

cc us ed wa s un de r 1 7 y ea rs of ag e a n d * ** a v

i cti m ** * w asat l

ea st 9 y ea rs of ag e b ut un der 17 y ea

rs of ag e” ) m us t be va ca ted beca us e i t i s a l es se r-i nc l uded of f en se of t he co unt base d o n sec t ion 1 2- 15( a) (1 ) o f the Co de ( 720 ILC S 5 /1 2- 15( a) (1 ) ( West 200 4) ) ( t he
acc use d "c ommits a n act of se xual co nduc t by the u se o f forc e”) . Alt er nat ively, res po ndent argue s that th

e on e-a ct, on e-c ri m e rul e p roh

i bi ts m ul ti pl e c onv i cti ons an d s en ten ce s c arv ed f rom the s am e ph y si cal act. The State fi

rst argues that respo nden t forfei ted this cl ai m b ecause h e fai led to rais e i

t at trial , citi ng In r e Rica rd o A. , 356 Ill . App. 3d 980, 994, 827 N.E. 2d 894 (2005) (where a resp ondent di

d not raise a

matter at tri al

it is wai ve d un l ess the evi den ce wa s cl osel y ba l anced or a funda menta l err or re sult ed in an u nfair t rial). Resp ond ent ack now ledge s t hat he did no t ra ise t he i ss ue at tr i al b ut a rg ue s th at th e m atte r s h oul d b e rev i ew ed aspl ai n er ror b ec au se it af f ec ts
su b sta n ti al ri gh ts. The p oss i

b il ity of a f utu re ad v er se ef f ec t on th e res pon

de n t i s on e rea son to
revi ew a r esp ondent’s

clai m s de spi te wai ve r. In re W.C. , 167 Ill . 2d 307, 342-43, 657 N. E.2d1-06-1214

13

908 (1 995 ). In In re W.C. , our supreme court modif ied a di spositional

order in a del

in quency adj udic ation af

ter concludi

ng that the trial

court erred in

enterin g two co unts of f

irst-degree
m urder w hen on l y one death

occurre d. In re W.C. , 167 I ll . 2d at 342-43. The supreme court also noted th e wel l -estab l i sh ed rul e tha t wai ve r i s a l im itation on the parti es, n ot the rev i ewi ng c ourt. In re W.C. , 1 67 I ll. 2d a t 342 . As d id t he su pr eme co ur t in In re W.C. , we wil l rev ie w the i ssue be caus e of

the p ossi bl e i m pact on resp ondent i

n th e f uture. Resp ond ent ar gue s t hat t he su pr eme co ur t 's o pinion in In re W.C. supports his cl ai m that the dispositional

ord er must be changed to re fl ect o nl y one count o f cri

mi nal sexual abuse because bot h co unt s we re base d o n t he single a ct of r ubbing t he vict im's cro t ch. We ag re e. In In re W.C. , the 1 3-y ear-ol d res ponde

nt wa s h el d acc ountab

l e f or a m urder c omm

itted by an other pe

rson . In re W.C. , 1 67 I ll. 2d a t 313 -1 4. At a n adjud icat or y hearing, t he t rial co ur t fou nd t he r esp ond ent del inquen t bas ed on

two counts of

f i rst degree m

urder b y acc ountab

il ity. In re W.C. , 167 Ill . 2d at 3 17. Th e tri

al j udg e s ai d the tw o m

urder c oun

ts w oul d b e m erg ed into a si ng l e f ind ing of del inquency . In re W.C. , 1 67 I ll. 2d a t 317 . B ut t he wr itt en disp os itio nal or der t hat follow ed t he ruli ng showed that “comm

itmen t was based on t wo o ff

enses of f irst degree murder. " In re W.C. , 167 Ill. 2d at 317 -1 8. The sup re me co ur t fou nd t he disp os itio nal or der t o be incor re ct : "[ I] n t he in ter es ts o f j us ti ce an d j udi ci al ec on om y , w e b el i ev e th e d i sp osi ti on al ord er sh oul d b e m odi f i ed to
re flect t hat [t he r esp ond ent 's] c ommitment t o t he De par t ment o f Cor re ct ions w as ba sed only o n a si ng l e of f en se of f i rs t de gre e m

urder. Such m

odi f i ca ti on i s i n or der to av oi d the p oss i

bi l ity of future co nf

usion or adverse effect to [the] r espondent. " In re W.C. , 167 Il l . 2d at 34 3. The St at e at t empt s t o d istingu ish In re W.C. by arg uing t hat t he co ur t t her e mod ifi ed t he1-06-1214

14

di sp osi ti on al ord er on l y to co rrect a

n in con siste

n cy b etw een th e tr i al cou rt' s oral pr on oun cem en ts
an d i ts wri tten order. In re W.C. , 1 67 I ll. 2d a t 342 -4 3. The St at e ar gue s t hat wher e t her e is no such i nconsistency, mul

tiple counts arisi

ng from the sam

e phy sical act should be all

owed because no prejudice resul

ts from the viol ation of the one-act , one-cr im e rule i n j uveni le proceedings, ci ting In re W.C. , 167 I ll . 2d at 342, which ci tes In r e Ma re no , 43 Ill . App. 3d 556, 558, 357 N. E. 2d 5 92 ( 197 6) . T he co ur t in In r e Ma re no he l d: " upon the f il ing of the si ng l e p eti ti on f or adj udic ation of wardsh

ip there coul

d be b ut o ne f in din g of del in quency , even though predi cated upon multi

ple off enses whi ch m ay h ave arisen out of the same conduct." In r e Ma re no , 43 I ll. App. 3d at 558. T he Stat e also ci tes In In terest of S.D.S. , 103 Ill . App. 3d 1008, 1015, 431 N.E.2d 7 59 (19 82), f

or the propos ition

that a f indi ng of "dua l gui l t" i n a j uve ni l e ca se is a m

ere tech ni cal i ty a nd n ot prej udi ci al
. In re S.D.S. , 103 Il

l . App. 3d a

t 1015. We disag re e t hat t he mod ifi cat ion o f the dispo sitio nal or der in In re W.C. se rv ed m erel y to correct a di screpancy

between the court’s oral pronouncem ent and i ts disposi tional order. No r do
we be l i eve th at th

e s upr em e c ourt i nte nd ed to es tab l i sh tha t the ap pe ara nc e of two c oun

ts of cri m ina l sex ual ab use on the di sposi tional order i n a j uve ni l e adj udi cation i s not prej udi

ci al . To the contrary, the suprem

e court's expans iv

e l anguage that "the i

nterests of j ustice an

d judi ci al economy " requi

red a modi

fi cation of the di

spositional

order suggests a broader go al : "Such modi fi cation i s i n order to avoi d the possib il ity of f uture confusi

on or adverse ef

fect to [t he] respondent ." In re W.C. , 1 67 I ll. 2d 3 43. We believe t his rea so ning re quir es mo dificat ion o f the di sposi tional order h ere to ref l ect a s ingl

e f indi ng of del inquency . The State also argues that respondent was properly found gui

lty of two co unts of cri

mi nal1-06-1214

15

sex ual ab use be caus e the

vi ctim reported a

t le ast two actsof s ex

ual cond uct, b oth wi

th a rock
. Altho ugh t he vict im test ifi ed t hat re spo ndent po ked her "abo ut t wo t imes," t her e is no t hing in the
rec ord to s ugg es t tha

t the court m ea nt to r ul e th at e ac h p oke

corr es ponde d to one c oun

t of crim in al sexual abuse. Nothi

ng i n the record suggests that the parties or the court ever di scussed t he nu mbe ro f po ke s. No rdo es t he r ec o r d s ug ge st t ha t r es po nd en t 's a ct o f st r ad dlin g t he vic t im and t ou ching his zipp er for med o ne co unt of t he o ffense and t he ac t of p ok ing t he vict im i n t he crot ch wi th a rock formed a second count. We are not persuaded by the Stat e's argum

ent that
eac h c ount corre sponded to a s epara te act. Having c onc luded t hat t he evide nce w as su ffi cient t o e st ablish beyond a r eas ona ble do ubt tha t responde nt a

cte d f or th e p urp ose

of sexu al arou sa l or gr ati f i ca ti on, we af f i rm the j udgm en t of the trial court but modi

fy the dis positi onal order t o refl

ect that t he court's fi

ndi ng of del in quency was bas ed on one off

ense of crim in al sexual abuse. Af f i rm ed; di sposi

tional order m odi f i ed. GARCIA, J., co ncurs. JUSTICE WOLF SON, diss entin g: C rim ina l inten t is rarel y prove d by

di rect ev i den ce. In re Donald R. , 343 Ill . App. 3d 237, 243 (2 003). In stead , inten t is ordina ril y inf erred f rom ci rcum stan tia l evi den ce. In re Donald R. , 343 Ill . App. 3d at 243. Whi le a fact fi nder can general ly in fer an adul t intended sexual gr ati f i ca ti on wh en touch in g a

v i cti m , i t i s n ot n ec es sa

ri l y “‘j us tif i ed to i m pu te th e s am e i n ten t in to a chi ld’ s action that one could reas onabl y i mpute i nto t he actions of an

adul t.’ ” In re Matthew K. , 355 Ill . App. 3d 652, 655 (2005), quo ting In re A.J.H. , 2 10 I ll. App. 3d 6 5, 72 ( 199 1) . “T he1-06-1214

16

f act f inde r m ust con si der al l of th e ev i den ce, i nc l udi ng th e of f en der’ s ag e an

d m aturi ty, b ef ore deci di ng w he ther i nten t can be inf erred
. In r e Ma t t hew K. , 355 Il l . App. 3d a

t 657. The St at e co nt ends t he vict im’s unco nt ra dict ed t est imony reg ar ding t he nat ur e and ci rcums tances surroundi

ng the responden

t’s actions an

d A.R.’s statem

ents to t he v

ictim al lowed the trial court to properly

in fer the requi si

te inten t under section 12-12(e). Our court s hav e been rel uc tan t to i nf er a m inor under th e age

of 13 i nte nd ed to touch the vi cti m f or th e p urp ose

of sexual arou sal or gr atification based only on their act ions. I wo uld reverse t he tr ial cou rt ’s f indi ngs in th i s ca se. In In re A.J.H. , a 13-year-old gi rl was accused of c

rim in al sexual abuse af ter t ouchi ng a 5- year- old boy’s p enis while babysitt ing him. The vict im said A.J. H. t ou ched his penis, skin-t o- skin, f or four to f

ive sec ondsan d then told hi

m not to tell

an y one. In re A.J.H. , 210 Ill . App. 3d at 67- 68 . Th e c our t re j ec ted th e S tate ’s

argu m en t th at th e ev i de n ce

wa s s uf f i ci en t to i n f er th e req ui si te
sexu al intent , ho lding “it is no t just ifi ed t o impu t e t he sa me intent into a child’s a ct ions t hat one could reasonab

ly im pute into the actions of

an adul t.” In re A.J.H. , 210 Il

l . App. 3d a

t 72. A cc ep ting

the vi cti m ’s al l eg ati ons as true , th e c ourt h

el d i t cou l d not rea sonab l

y inf er th e m inor inten ded to sexua

ll y grati f y or arouse he rsel f or the v i ctim through he r acti ons. In re A.J.H. , 210 Il l . App. 3d a

t 72. The m inor’ s con vi cti on wa s rev

erse d. In In re E.R.E. , a 1 2-y

ea r-ol d b oy wa s a cc us ed of ag gra va ted cri m ina l sexu al ab us e f or touch in g th

e v ag in a of

a 6 -y ea r-ol d g i rl . Th e v i cti m sa i d th e m in or h ad touch ed h er “ pr iv ate parts” over her clot hes, an d to ld h er not t o t el

l a ny one. Not in

g the evi dence was

weaker than that pr ese nt ed in In re A.J.H. , the court reversed the tria l c ourt ’s adj udic ation an

d hel d the Stat e fai

led1-06-1214

17

to prove b eyond a

reas onab l e doubt that the m

inor acted f

or sex ual grati f i cation. In re

E.R.E. , 245 Il l . App. 3d 66 9, 674 ( 1993)
. In In r e Ma t t hew K. , a 12-year-o ld b oy was accused of aggravated cr im in al sex ual abuse fo rt o uc hing t he va gin a o f an 8- yea r - o ld g irl. While t he vic t im and t he r es po nd en t we r e a lo ne in the respondent’s room, the vi ctim sat on the respondent’s l

ap after he told h

er they woul

d “do massag es. ” With t he vict im’s pant s do wn, t he r esp ond ent t ou ched t he vict im’s vagina. The vic t im t es t ified he slid his fin ge rin “a lit t le” bu t “no t t o o muc h. ” W he n t he vic t im t o ld h im it tickl ed, the respondent told her to cover her mouth. He then gav e the vi ctim a “tongue m

assage” by put t ing his mout h aga inst he rs a nd wigg ling his to ngue . H e also lif t ed t he vict im’s shirt and gave her a “belly m

assa ge. ” T he vict im did not not ice anyt hing unu sua l abou t t he r esp ond ent , a nd he di d not make an

y strange sounds, threaten her, or remove h is own clot hi

ng. Wh en som e other childre n kno cke d at t he do or , t he vict im l ifted up he r u nder wea r a nd t he r esp ond ent op ened t he door . The respondent told the vi ctim to keep the i

nci dent a secret. The vi

ctim ’s m ot her testif

ied that t he v ictim to ld h er the respondent m

assaged the v

ictim ’s “ pee-pee” wi

th hi s tongue and asked the victim to “suck hi s wien

er.” Dr . Kraus, a chil

d psych ologist, o pin

ed the respo ndent was a “soci al ly defi ci ent 12-yea

r-old, may

be acti ng at the level

of a 10-year-old, pla

yi ng doctor with a

7- ye ar-old.” The court held there was

no evi dence the responde

nt removed h

is cl ot hi ng, breathed he av il y , pl ac ed the vi cti m ’s ha nd on h i s p en i s, or ha d a n e recti on or an y othe r ob se rv ab l e s i gn s of
arousa l
. In r e Ma t t hew K. , 355 Ill . App. 3d at 655. Whi le the court recogniz ed i

ntent of sex

ual gr at ifi cat ion may be pr ove d wit h circu msta nt ial evidence , it held t he St at e failed t o p re sent1-06-1214

18

suf f i ci en t ci rcum stan tia l evi den ce i n th i s ca se. In r e Ma t t hew K. , 355 Il l . App. 3d a

t 656. Bec aus e t he r esp ond ent ’s ag e wa s clo se t o t he ag e o f the minors in In re A.J.H. and In re E.R.E. , the c ourt hel

d the inf eren ce of sex ual grati f i cation, wi

thout ev i den ce of inten t, was unre ason ab l e. In r e Ma t t hew K. , 355 Il

l . App. 3d a

t 656-57. T

he resp ondent’s

conv i cti on wa s rev

erse d. By co nt ra st , in In re Donald R. , a 16-year-old boy was ac cused of aggrav ated crim in al
sexu al abus e and sexu al explo itat ion o f a child by expo sing his pe nis to a 6- year- old girl and hav in g her touch it. The court distin guished In re A.J.H. and In re E.R.E , noting the accus ed was 16 y earsof a ge rath er tha n 12 or 13. In re Donald R. , 343 I ll . App. 3d at 244. T he court also not ed t he minor in In re Donald R. confes sed to t he actus reus of t he cr ime, while t he minor s in In re A .J.H and In re E.R.Edeni

ed comm ittin g the act . In re Donald R. , 343 Ill . App. 3d at 244. I have e xam in ed other juri sdictions f

or a case where a 12-y

ear-old was h

el d to have acted for t he pu rp os e o f sexua l gra t ifi cat ion o r a ro usa l under fact s simil ar t o t his case . I have no t fou nd any . I would decl

in e to be the fi

rst t o do so . See In re Ky le O. , 14 Neb. App. 61, 703 N.W.2d 909 (2 005 ) ( re lyi

ng o n In r e Ma t t hew K. , th e c ourt h el d there wa s n o ev i de nc e a 14- y ea r-ol d b oy t ou ched t he vict im’s penis for t he pu rp os e o f sexua l aro usa l or gr at ifi cat ion, not ing t her e wa s “no evi dence that [the m

in or] was sexual

ly aroused, and we are l

eft l ooking to t he ci

rcums tantial evidence in an at te mpt t o g lean [t he min or ’s] inte nt. ”); In re T.S. , 133 N.C. App. 272, 277, 515 S.E.2d 230 (1999) (“wi

thout some ev

ide nce of the chi ld’ s m aturity, i ntent, experience, or ot her facto r in act ing, sexua l ambi tio ns must no t be assigned t o a child’s act ions”) ; In re Jerry M. , 59 Cal. Ap p. 4t h 289 , 2 97 ( 199 7) (c ou rt held t her e wa s no evidenc e an 1 1- year- old boy t ou ched t he vic t im’s va gin a fo rt he pu r po se o f se xu al a r o us al, no t ing “t he yo un ge rt he mino rt he les s lik ely his1-06-1214

19

acts are with the speci

fi c i ntent of sex

ual arousal”)
. Cf

. In re Pau l F. , 221 Cal. A pp. 3d 43, 54 (19 90) (vi cti

m ’s tes tim ony tha t 13- 1/2 -y ea r-ol d m inor ha d a n e recti on w as su

bstan ti al ev i de nc e of the mi nor ’s “lewd o r lascivious inte nt” ); In re R andy S. , 76 Cal. A

pp. 4th 400, 407-08 (1999) (D efenda nt , a n 11- year- old boy, sug ges t ed his a ge s hou ld t ru mp t he o t her fact or s which must be
cons i dered

in de term ini ng w he ther h e touched h

i s step si ster f

or a sex ual l y m otiv ated pu

rpose. T he co ur t r eje ct ed his a r gu men t , no t ing t ha t lo ck ing t he do o r , ad mit t ing he pla ce d h is fing er s in t he vic t im’s va gin a, ad mit t ing kn o win g t ha t he co uld be in t r o ub le fo rse xu ally a bu sing t he vic t im wh en his s t ep mo t he rr emo ve d h im fro m sc ho o l, an d a t t emp t ing t o ev ad e t he co nse qu en ce s o f his actions dem

onstrated “he harb ored t he requi si te inten t t o aro use his own sex

ual desi res through the u se of [the v i ctim ].”) He re, si m il ar to In re A.J.H. , In re

E.R.E. , and In r e Ma t t hew K. , nothi ng i n th e rec ord bef ore us directly

suggests the respondent touched the vi ctim for the purpose of sexua

l grati f i cation or arous al . I woul d f ind A .R. rep eatedl

y ask ing th e vi ctim “a re y ou suc ki ng, or a re y ou f ucki ng” does n ot cle arl y indi cate re sponden

t’s s tate of m

ind w hen h e touched the vi ctim . While the S t at e ur ges us t o infer intent fro m the na t ur e o f the re spo ndent ’s ac t ions, t her e wa s no ev i de nc e p res en

ted su gge sti ng responde nt h

ad an erecti on or an y othe r ob se rv ab l e s i gn s of
ar ou sal whe n he po ked t he vict im’s vagina t wice w ith a r oc k. No r d id t he St at e pr ese nt any evi den ce of resp ondent’s

l ev el of m aturi ty or th e ex tent of hi s l i f e ex peri ence. In light of t he r esp ond ent ’s ag e at t he t ime of t he incident , I w ould find the tr ial cou rt ’s in feren ce of sex ual gratif ic ation, wi

thout enough ev

ide nce of i ntent, was unreasonab

le . See In re A.J.H. , 21 0 Ill. App. 3d at 72; In re E.R.E. , 24 5 Ill. App. 3d at 674 ; In r e Ma t t hew K. , 35 5 I ll.1-06-1214

20

App. 3d a t 656-57. I re sp ec tf ul l y di ss en t.