No. 2-- 06--0369 Fil ed: 10-30-07

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f D e K alb Co un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppel le e, ) ) v. ) No. 04-- CF--760 ) BRANDY

D. FELTON, ) Ho no r ab le ) Rob b i n J. Stu cker

t, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

________________________________________ _____ ___________________________________ _ JU STI CEO' MA

LL EY de l i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Fo llowing a b en ch t r ial in t he cir cu it cou rt of De Ka lb Cou nt y, de fendant , B ra ndy D. Felt on, was f ound guil ty of obstructin

g jus tice (720 ILCS 5/31-- 4(a) (W est 200 4)) an

d w assente

nc ed to a two- ye ar term of condi

tional dis charge. Defe

ndan t argues on appeal that the State fai le d t o p ro ve he rgu ilt be yo nd a r ea so na ble do ub t . We affir m. Defend ant was cha

rgedby a single-c ou nt indict ment a lleging t hat "wit h t he inte nt t o p re vent the appre he ns i on of Marcus Jones, [d efenda nt ] k now ingly f ur nished false info rmat ion t o D et ect ive Jo hn Pe tragal l o, a

pol i ce of f i cer, a s to wh

o h ad pos se ss i on

of h er v eh i cl e. " A t tri al , de f en da n t' s co usin, Ca r l King , t es t ified t ha t o n D ec emb er 4, 20 04 , he as ke d d efe nd an t if he coul d borrow her car for the ni ght. Defen

dant pic ked King up a t his home a nd t hey dr ove back t o he r a par t ment. King then left w ith her car . King t est ifi ed t hat dur ingthe

even i ng or du ri ng the ea rl y morn i ng hou rs of t he next day, he dr ove to a Road Ra nge r gas stati on. He w as a cco mpanied by his friend, Mar cus , a ndNo. 2-- 06--0369

-2-

two other f

ri ends. While they we re at t he ga s st at ion, Ma rcu s w asi nv ol ve d i n a ph y si cal al terc ati on wi th th e c l er k. Th e c l er

k w as se rious l y b ea ten . K i n g l ate r re tur n ed th e c ar to de f en da n t. Jo hn Pet ra gallo, a de t ect ivewit h t he De Kalb po lice dep ar t ment, t est ifi ed t hat he in

vestigated t he incident at t he ga s stati on . H e l ea rned th at th e v i cti m an d oth er s h ad ob tai n ed th e l i cen se pl ate num ber of the veh

ic le in whi ch the sus pect was trave l i

ng. Petragall

o determin

ed that the vehi

cl e was "associ ated" wit h d efe nd an t an d a no t he rind ividua l. Pe t r ag allo an d a no t he rde t ec t ive , Ro be r t Re de l, in terviewe d defen dant at her apa rt ment. Pet ra gallo a dvised defend ant t hat t hey wer e t ryingt o ide nt ify an individual involved in a

fight a t t he Ro ad R ange r g as st at ion o n t he even in g of Decem

ber 4, 2004, ort he fo llo win g mo rning . He fur t he rad vise d h er t ha t t he su bje ct wa s s ee n le av ing t he ga s s t at io n in her veh ic le . Defe ndan t responded that t hat could n ot be the cas e becaus e she does n ot al low an

yb ody to u se h er v eh i cl e. Pe tragal l o th en

i n f orm ed de f en da n t th at h er v eh i cl e h ad b een i den ti fied by it s li censepla te numb er and ha

d been observed i

n survei ll ance-cam era footage. Defendan

t was shown a stil l ph ot ograph of Marcus Jone s that was taken fro m the cam

era footage. Defendan

t indi cated that she di d n ot knowthe in

div idua l i n the ph ot ograph and ha

d never seen h

im bef ore. Defe ndan t ins is ted that she parked

her car ou t side he r a par t ment bef ore she went to bed on Decem ber 4, 2004, and that it remai ned there al

l n igh t. She all owed that because she

a lways le aves h

er apartment unl

ocked, so meone might ha ve ent er ed he r a par t ment , taken hercar keys, and used the v ehi cl e wi thout her knowle dge or permi ssion. Petragall o assured defen dant that his

goal was to iden

tif y the subj ect in volv ed in the al tercation and that other people ridi ng i n the vehi cl e were not in

tro uble. She stated ag ain t hat nobo dy had he r ve hicle. Re del's t est imony gener ally cor ro bor at ed P et ra gallo's ac cou nt of the in terview.No. 2-- 06--0369

-3-

Defend ant arg

ue s th at the Sta te f ai l ed to prov e h er g ui l t be y ond a re as ona

bl e dou bt . A cri mi nal co nvic t io n w ill no t be se t as ide o n a pp ea l un les s t he ev ide nc e is so im probabl e o r uns ati sf actory that i t creates a rea sona bl e doubt of the

def endan t's g uil t. Peo ple v. Co lli

ns , 10 6 I ll. 2d 237, 261 (1985). When a de fen dant chal le nges the s uff ic ie ncy of the ev ide nce, " 't he r elevant que sti on is whether, af

ter viewi ng the ev ide nce i n the l igh t most favorab l e to the p rosecu tion , any rational trier of f act could hav

e found the e ssen

tial el eme nt s o f t he cr ime be yo nd a r ea so na ble doubt.' " (Em phasi s i n ori gi na l .) Co lli ns , 106 Ill . 2d at 261, quo t ing Ja ck so n v. Vir gin ia , 443 U.S. 307, 31 9, 61 L . Ed. 2d 56 0, 573, 9 9 S. Ct. 278 1, 2789(1979 ). Se cti on 31 --4 of th e Cri m i n al Cod e of 19 61 (C ode ) p rov

i de s, i n perti n en t pa rt: "A per so n obs t ru ct s just ice whe n, with i ntent to prevent the apprehensi on or o bstruct the pros ecution or

de f en se of an y pe rs on , he knowingl

y com mi ts any of the f

ollowi ng acts: (a) Destroys, al

ters, co nceals or disguises ph ys ic al ev i den ce , pl an ts f al se e vi den ce, [or] f urni shes f al se i nf orma tion [.]" (Em

phasi s ad ded.) 7 20 IL CS 5/3 1--4 (W est 200 4). Defend ant wa s ch arge d w i th f ur n i sh i n g f alse i n f orm ati on to a po lice officer wit h t he i n ten t to pr event the

appre he ns i on of MarcusJones. Acc ording to defen dant, "the police off

ic ers testif ie d that they wer e no t see king t o 'a ppr ehend ' t he pe rso n alleged ly i nvolved in the incide nt at the Road Ran ger, but on l y to 'i den tif y' h i m ." Defe ndan t contends that "[b]ecause the detectiv es speci fi cally in dic ated that the y we re n ot t rying t o a rr est or app re hend t he un kn o wn ind ividua l, bu t o nly t o 'id en t ify' him, t he [i nten

t] e lem ent of an obstru cting j ustice offense could not p ossibl y b e met by

[defendant's] cond uct." Defe

ndan t's characteri

zation of the e

v ide nc e is si

m pl y n ot ac cu ra te. A cc ordi

n g to Pet ra gallo's t est imony, he t old defend ant he wa s t ryingto ide ntif y the suspect i n the attackat the gas st at ion. Ther e is n

o ev i den ce th at P etrag al

l o ev er i n di ca ted to d ef en da n t wh eth er h e i n ten de d toNo. 2-- 06--0369

-4-

arrest t he su sp ec t aft er ide nt ifying h im. T hu s, alt ho ug h it is t ru e t hat Pet ra gallo d id no t t ell defenda nt he in tended to arr est the suspect, it is not t rue that the of

f i cers testi f i ed th at they

were not see king to arrest the suspect or t hat they ever suggested to defen

dant that the suspect would not be arrested. Undoubtedl

y, def endan t real ized th at the p erpetra

tor of a v i ole nt attack --whom th

e pol i ce we re seeki ng he r hel p in ide ntif yi ng--would l

ike ly be arrested once hi

s i dentity was ascertai

ned. Defe n dant next ar gue s t hat t he St at e failed t o p ro ve t hat she int ende d t o p re vent t he appre he ns i on of Ma rcus Jones, because there was no evidence that she even kn ew Marcus Jones. Defend ant contends t ha t in People v . Al varado , 30 1 I l l . A

pp . 3d 10 17 (1 99 8) , th

i s c our t h el d th at to su st ain a c onv

i cti on of obstr uction of justice f

or t he act of furni shi

ng fal se in formation, the St ate must pr ove that t he i

nf orm ati on wasf urn i sh ed to preve nt th e a ppr eh en si on or obs truc t the pros ecution of a sp ec ific ind iv i dual

f or a spe ci f

i c of f en se. In f act, Al varado hel

d that in a

n obstruction of j ustice prosecution, the chargi

ng i nstrume nt "m ust all ege or make ref

erence to some parti cul ar

impending appre he ns i on or prose cu

ti on f oran identif

iab le or pot ential

ly chargeabl e offense." Al

varado , 30 1 I ll. App. 3d at 1023 . Al

varado sta

tes n o re qui re men t th at th e def en da n t kn ow th e i den ti ty of the pe rs on whose appr eh

ensi on h e or sh e i n ten dsto prev

en t. Here, the Stat e was requi redto prove only

that defend ant f

urn i sh ed f al se i nf orm ati on w i th th e i nte nt to prev en t the appre he ns i on of th e i ndi vi dual who alle ge dly

atta cked a c l erk at the R oad Ra ng er g assta

ti on on the even in g of Decem

ber 4, 2004, ort he fo llo win g mo rning . Whe t he rde fen da nt kn ew t ha t pe r so n by na me o ro t he rwis e is immat er ial. Defend ant maintains t hat t he evide nce might es tab l i sh tha t sh e l i ed to prote ct her c ous i

n or because she fear ed t hat she might be "found liab le i n some way

for lendi ng out her car." She insists, however, that "her i

ntent with res

pect to a person nam

ed Marcus Jon

eswa s n ot es tab l i sh

ed ." S ec ti on 4--4 of the Code p rovides that "[a] person intends, or act s in tentionall y or with i ntent, t o acco mpl

ishNo. 2-- 06--0369

-5-

a res ul t or en ga gei n c on duct d esc rib ed by

the statut e defi

ni ng the off

ense, wh en h is conscious objec t iveorpurpose is to accompl is h that resul

t o r engagein

that co nduct." 72 0 ILCS 5/4- -4 (West 2004) . The t hru st of d efenda nt 's ar gument se em s to be t hat she lied t o p ro t ect her self or her co usin, buttha t sh e h ad no r ea son to pro tect Marcus Jones, a per son whom (so far as the eviden ce shows) she di d n ot kno w. The ar gument is unpe rsu asive. If de fendant was co ncer ned t hat t he incident might cause problem

s f or her or her cous in, it wo uld be r eas ona ble for her t o c onc lude t hat t he app r eh en sio n

o f Ma r cu s J o ne s c o uld ex ac er ba t e a ny su ch pr o ble ms. T hu s, t he t r ial c o ur t co uld
r ea so na bly

in fer that defen dant in tended t o p re vent t he ap pr ehens ion o f Marc us J one s. V iewing t he evidenc e in the light mo st favo ra ble to t he pr os ecu t ion, a r at ional t rier of fac t co uld have fou nd t he el em en ts o f ob str uc ti n g j us ti ce b ey on d a re as on ab l e doub

t. For the f oreg oi ng rea sons, th

e j udg men t of the ci rcu i t cou rt of De Kal b County is aff irm ed. Af fi rmed. BYR NE an d GILLERA

N JO HNSO

N, JJ ., conc

ur.