Court Opinion

ID: 9906673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-04 21:08:37.006824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:32.009196
License: Public Domain

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).

                                        2023 IL App (3d) 220509-U

                                 Order filed December 4, 2023
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                  IN THE

                                    APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                            THIRD DISTRICT

                                                   2023

      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF                      )      Appeal from the Circuit Court
      ILLINOIS,                                       )      of the 12th Judicial Circuit,
                                                      )      Will County, Illinois
             Plaintiff-Appellee,                      )
                                                      )      Appeal No. 3-22-0509
             v.                                       )      Circuit No. 20-CM-1924
                                                      )
      JOHNNY GONZALES,                                )      Honorable
                                                      )      David M. Carlson,
             Defendant-Appellant.                     )      Judge, Presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the judgment of the court.
            Justices Peterson and Albrecht concurred in the judgment.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                ORDER

¶1          Held: The evidence presented was sufficient to prove defendant guilty beyond a
                  reasonable doubt.

¶2          Defendant, Johnny Gonzales, appeals from his conviction for domestic battery. Defendant

     contends that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, arguing that there

     was no evidence presented of physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature. We affirm.

¶3                                         I. BACKGROUND
¶4          The State charged defendant with two counts of domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2),

     (b) (West 2020)). The charges stemmed from an October 5, 2020, incident where defendant was

     alleged to have made physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature about the head (count I)

     and body (count II) of Anna Giglio. A bench trial was held on May 12, 2022.

¶5          Giglio testified that, on October 5, 2020, she was in a relationship and living with

     defendant. That morning, defendant needed to “go put a bid on a job” so Giglio, defendant, and

     her granddaughter left the house. Giglio and defendant began arguing about who would drive.

     Giglio testified that she “was mad because how he was talking to [her].” She confirmed that

     defendant was also angry.

¶6          Giglio sat in the driver’s seat and the vehicle would not start. Giglio indicated that

     defendant used a jump starter to start the vehicle. As defendant was returning the jump starter to

     the vehicle’s hatch, Giglio began to drive. She confirmed that defendant was not in the vehicle

     when she started driving. She reversed and attempted to drive away from defendant. Defendant

     climbed into the hatch and through the vehicle to the driver’s seat. The vehicle came to a sudden

     stop. Giglio indicated that she believed defendant shifted the vehicle into park but was unsure. She

     fled the vehicle, bleeding from the face. Giglio could not recall whether she “hit [her] face on the

     steering wheel or [she] was struck.” Giglio testified that she routinely took antidepressants but had

     not taken her medication that day. She explained that failing to take the medication affected her

     mood, making her emotions erratic. However, failure to take her medication did not affect her

     memory.

¶7          Giglio testified that she called the police after she ran from the vehicle. Defendant had

     removed her granddaughter from the vehicle and driven off. She feared defendant would try to

     strike her with the vehicle. Giglio encountered officers as she was running. She provided both an

                                                      2
       oral and written statement to police. Giglio was shown a copy of her written statement. She

       confirmed the statement was signed by her and provided on the day of the incident, October 5,

       2020, at approximately 1:30 p.m., and that her memory of events was better at the time when she

       wrote it. Giglio wrote that defendant had been hitting her. She confirmed that she sustained an

       injury to her face and did not have any injuries prior to this incident.

¶8            University Park Officer Julio Garcia testified that on October 5, 2020, he was dispatched

       to a domestic disturbance call. En route to the address, he observed defendant driving Giglio’s

       vehicle and stopped him. Defendant immediately exited the vehicle. He was upset and told Garcia

       that he had engaged in an altercation with Giglio. While speaking with defendant, Garcia observed

       Giglio walking down the street with her grandchild. Garcia indicated that Giglio was also upset.

       Giglio informed Garcia that she had been assaulted during an altercation with defendant. Garcia

       testified that Giglio’s nose was bloody, and he observed swelling on her forehead. Defendant was

       highly agitated and cursed at Garcia as he was taken into custody. On cross-examination, Garcia

       testified that he had not witnessed any physical altercation. His knowledge of how Giglio’s injuries

       occurred came from her statements to him.

¶9            The court found defendant guilty on count I for making physical contact of an insulting or

       provoking nature with Giglio’s head. The court acquitted defendant of count II. Defendant was

       sentenced to 120 days in jail. Defendant filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the evidence

       was insufficient to sustain his conviction. The motion to reconsider was denied. Defendant

       appealed.

¶ 10                                              II. ANALYSIS

¶ 11          On appeal, defendant argues that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable

       doubt of domestic battery where it failed to demonstrate that he knowingly or intentionally struck

                                                         3
       Giglio about the head. Defendant contends that Giglio’s inability to recall whether defendant

       struck her, and her written statement’s lack of context and credibility rendered the evidence

       insufficient to sustain his conviction.

¶ 12          When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant inquiry is “ ‘whether, after

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

       have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (Emphasis in

       original.) People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.

       307, 319 (1979)). It is not the function of the reviewing court to retry defendant. People v. Smith,

       185 Ill. 2d 532, 541 (1999). “[A] reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of the

       trier of fact on issues involving the weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses.” People

       v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 64. “All reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn in

       favor of the prosecution.” People v. Newton, 2018 IL 122958, ¶ 24. “[I]n weighing evidence, the

       trier of fact is not required to disregard inferences which flow normally from the evidence before

       it, nor need it search out all possible explanations consistent with innocence and raise them to a

       level of reasonable doubt.” People v. Jackson, 232 Ill. 2d 246, 281 (2009). A court’s judgment will

       not be reversed “unless the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to create

       a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” Newton, 2018 IL 122958, ¶ 24.

¶ 13          Here, the evidence showed that defendant and Giglio had a disagreement about who would

       drive Giglio’s vehicle. Both Giglio and defendant were angry. After defendant jump-started the

       vehicle, Giglio began to drive away. Defendant entered the hatch of the vehicle and climbed

       through to the front seat, at which time Giglio sustained injuries to her face. On the day of the

       incident, when her memory was better, Giglio provided a written statement to police that recounted

       that defendant struck her. She likewise told Garcia that she had been assaulted by defendant. After

                                                        4
       the incident, she fled the vehicle in fear and called the police. After reviewing the evidence in the

       light most favorable to the State, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant’s

       conviction for domestic battery.

¶ 14          In reaching this conclusion, we reject defendant’s argument that Giglio’s written statement

       lacks credibility and context. Defendant states that Giglio’s erratic mental state affected the

       credibility of the statement she made to police. Mental health history can be a relevant factor in

       determining the credibility of a witness. People v. Johnson, 2023 IL App (2d) 210110, ¶ 30.

       However, here, Giglio described her emotional state as erratic but testified multiple times that her

       memory was unaffected by her failure to take her medication. Her overwrought emotions do not

       render her contemporaneous statements to police incredible. Additionally, nothing about her

       statement is contradicted by the evidence of her injuries or actions after the incident. Accordingly,

       the trial court’s credibility determination regarding Giglio, and her contemporaneous statements

       were reasonable.

¶ 15          Further, defendant contends that testimony regarding the written statement included no

       context and could have been referencing a different date, time, or incident. However, Giglio

       testified that her statement was signed and dated. She testified that she provided the statement on

       October 5, 2020, at approximately 1:30 p.m. Considering Giglio’s testimony that she called the

       police after fleeing the vehicle and provided both oral and written statements to them that same

       day, it is reasonable to infer that the subject of the written statement was the incident that she had

       contacted police about and had occurred that same morning.

¶ 16          Finally, defendant argues alternatively that the State failed to prove the contact was

       intentional or knowing, arguing that defendant may have been attempting to stop Giglio from

       driving recklessly or that her injury was caused by inadvertent contact. “Knowledge, as an element

                                                         5
       of a criminal offense, is a question of fact for the trier of fact to decide.” People v. Monteleone,

       2018 IL App (2d) 170150, ¶ 26. Where the evidence demonstrates that defendant struck Giglio

       provoking her to flee from the vehicle in fear, it can be reasonably inferred that the contact was

       intentional or knowing.

¶ 17          Therefore, we find the evidence sufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction for domestic

       battery.

¶ 18                                          III. CONCLUSION

¶ 19          The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.

¶ 20          Affirmed.

                                                        6