Court Opinion

ID: 9963418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 15:41:38.200833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:48.728187
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (1st) 231044-U
                                          No. 1-23-1044
                                    Order filed April 25, 2024
                                                                                    Fourth 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,                        )   Appeal from the
                                                             )   Circuit Court of
          Plaintiff-Appellee,                                )   Cook County.
                                                             )
     v.                                                      )   No. 22 CR 2061
                                                             )
 ZENOVII BLIUSOVYCH,                                         )   Honorable
                                                             )   Joseph Cataldo,
          Defendant-Appellant.                               )   Judge, presiding.

          JUSTICE MARTIN delivered the judgment of the court.
          Presiding Justice Rochford and Justice Hoffman concurred in the judgment.

                                            ORDER

¶1     Held: Defendant’s convictions for home invasion and aggravated battery affirmed where
             the trial court did not err when it denied defendant’s posttrial motion for judgment
             notwithstanding the verdict.

¶2     Following a jury trial, defendant Zenovii Bliusovych was convicted of home invasion and

aggravated battery and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of nine years and three years,

respectively. On appeal, Bliusovych contends the trial court erred when it denied his posttrial

motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the State failed to prove him guilty
No. 1-23-1044

beyond a reasonable doubt. Bliusovych claims there was no evidence that he knowingly and

voluntarily committed the offenses where his medical expert testified that he was sleepwalking at

the time of the offenses and, thus, was not consciously aware of his conduct. We affirm. 1

¶3                                       I. BACKGROUND

¶4      Bliusovych was tried on one count each of home invasion and aggravated battery. At trial,

Remy Shorter testified that he and his girlfriend, Tiffany Brown, lived in unit 3A on the third floor

of a three-floor condominium building in Mount Prospect, Illinois. There were two units on each

floor, with 3B across the hall from 3A. The building had locked front and rear entrances, and guests

could only enter the building if they had a key or were buzzed in through the front entrance.

Shorter’s two-bedroom unit also had a front and rear entrance. The key for Shorter’s unit was

different than the key for the building.

¶5      In the late hours of November 12, 2021, Shorter was playing video games in one of the

bedrooms. Brown was asleep in the master bedroom. Between 11 p.m. and midnight, Shorter took

their dog, Milo, outside for a walk. Afterwards, he reentered his unit through the rear door, which

had an automatic closure. He did not lock the rear door after reentering. Shorter turned off the

lights in the living room and returned to playing video games in the bedroom.

¶6      About 1:30 a.m., Shorter heard Milo barking in the living room. He looked up and saw the

lights go on in the living room. Brown was still asleep in the master bedroom. Shorter walked into

the living room and saw Bliusovych standing in the middle of the room. Shorter did not know

Bliusovych and had never seen him before. Bliusovych was wearing jeans and a long-sleeved shirt.

        In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), this
        1

appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon the entry of a separate written order.

                                                  -2-
No. 1-23-1044

He wore socks but no shoes. Shorter asked Bliusovych what he was doing in his home. Bliusovych

looked directly at Shorter but did not respond. Shorter was “nervous and scared” and punched

Bliusovych in the face. Bliusovych fell onto the couch. Shorter punched Bliusovych again.

¶7     Shorter thought Bliusovych was possibly his landlord and backed up to allow Bliusovych

to stand. Bliusovych stood and took a few steps further into the room. Shorter backed up and yelled

at Bliusovych, asking why Bliusovych was in his home and what he wanted. Bliusovych looked

at Shorter but did not respond. Shorter pointed to the back door and told Bliusovych to leave

several times. Bliusovych stood face-to-face with Shorter, less than two feet apart. Bliusovych

frowned at Shorter and began tilting his head to the left and right. Bliusovych was looking at

Shorter up and down, “sizing [him] up.” Bliusovych pulled up his shirt sleeves and turned his

watch upside-down.

¶8     Brown entered the living room and Shorter told her to call the police. Bliusovych began

breathing heavily. Bliusovych made fists with both of his hands and thrust them down at his sides

three times, while yelling “ahhh.” Shorter grabbed a TV tray and held it over his shoulder with

both hands. Shorter warned Bliusovych that he would use the tray if Bliusovych attacked him.

Bliusovych lunged into Shorter’s chest with his shoulder, pushing Shorter into the wall. Shorter

struck Bliusovych on top of the head with the TV tray. Shorter braced himself against the wall as

Bliusovych continued pushing into Shorter’s chest with his shoulder.

¶9     Bliusovych and Shorter stumbled together into the room where Shorter had been playing

video games. Bliusovych made a quick “maneuver” and Shorter fell to the floor, landing on his

buttocks, with Bliusovych standing behind him. Bliusovych immediately placed Shorter’s neck in

a “choke hold,” with one of his forearms behind Shorter’s head and the other in the front. Shorter

                                               -3-
No. 1-23-1044

tried to pull away, but Bliusovych gripped “tighter and tighter.” Shorter was no longer able to

breathe and used what felt like his last breath to call Brown for help. Shorter felt like he was going

to lose consciousness.

¶ 10   Brown entered the room while still on the phone with the police. Brown yelled at

Bliusovych to get off Shorter. Bliusovych eventually let go of Shorter and ran out of the bedroom,

through the living room, and out the rear door. Shorter stood but immediately fell to the floor

gasping for breath. He crawled to the couch in the living room. The police arrived a few minutes

later. Shorter had difficulty breathing for several minutes and vomited. He was treated by

paramedics in his condominium. In court, Shorter identified photographs taken by the police

depicting bruises on his neck and face.

¶ 11   At approximately 7 a.m., Brown woke Shorter and said Bliusovych was exiting their

building and was outside. Shorter observed Bliusovych walking in the parking lot in front of the

building. Shorter ran downstairs and outside into the parking lot. Bliusovych looked at Shorter and

immediately entered his vehicle, which was parked in the lot, and quickly closed his door.

Bliusovych pulled out of the parking space and drove away. Shorter took a picture of the rear of

Bliusovych’s vehicle and license plate.

¶ 12   As Shorter walked back to his building, he saw Bliusovych drive out of the parking lot,

turn left, and drive back into the lot. As Shorter walked up the stairs to his unit, an unknown man

came down the stairs from unit 3B. It was not the man who lived there. The man glanced at Shorter

and exited the building. The door slammed closed behind him. The man looked towards Shorter,

as Shorter took photographs of him. The man tried to open the door but could not. The man yelled

at Shorter to let him in the building, claiming he had forgotten his phone upstairs. Shorter refused.

                                                -4-
No. 1-23-1044

The man entered Bliusovych’s vehicle through the passenger door, and Bliusovych drove away.

Shorter subsequently identified Bliusovych in a photo array.

¶ 13   On cross-examination, Shorter acknowledged that when he was face-to-face with

Bliusovych in the living room, Bliusovych was staring at him and not talking. Shorter denied that

Bliusovych was “just standing there” and repeatedly testified that Bliusovych was “clearly looking

me up and down.” Shorter maintained Bliusovych was “sizing me up like he was mad that I

punched him.” Bliusovych was “focused” on Shorter and did not look towards Brown or the dog.

When Shorter threatened Bliusovych with the TV tray, Bliusovych “looked fully confident” and

“like he was about to do something.”

¶ 14   Tiffany Brown testified that during the early morning hours of November 13, 2021, she

was asleep in her bedroom while Shorter played video games in the second bedroom. She awoke

to their dog barking and heard a commotion in the living room. She walked to the living room and

observed Bliusovych, standing and looking at Shorter while moving his head from side to side.

Brown had never seen Bliusovych before. Bliusovych looked “really confused and just like not

aware, almost blank looking.” Shorter told Brown to call the police. A recording of Brown’s 911

call was played in court and admitted into evidence.

¶ 15   Brown heard Shorter ask Bliusovych what he was doing in their home. Shorter yelled at

Bliusovych to leave but he did not. Bliusovych adjusted his sleeves and twisted his watch.

Bliusovych then growled and lunged at Shorter. The men struggled with each other and fell into

the second bedroom. Shorter yelled for Brown. She ran into the bedroom and saw that Bliusovych

had Shorter in a chokehold. Brown yelled at Bliusovych to release Shorter, but he did not. Brown

struck Bliusovych in the head with her phone, and he released Shorter. Bliusovych ran out the rear

                                               -5-
No. 1-23-1044

door of their unit. Brown knew Bliusovych did not leave the building because she did not hear him

go down the stairs nor did she hear the loud thud of the building’s door closing. The police arrived

shortly after Bliusovych left. Shorter had scratches and bruises around his neck.

¶ 16   Brown did not fall back asleep that night. Around 7 a.m., she was looking out their bedroom

window when she saw Bliusovych exit the front door of their building and walk towards the

visitor’s parking area. Brown awoke Shorter and told him Bliusovych was outside. Shorter ran

downstairs, and Bliusovych entered a vehicle. Brown subsequently identified Bliusovych in a

photo array.

¶ 17   On cross-examination, Brown acknowledged that Bliusovych was not wearing shoes.

Bliusovych was not swaying or staggering, nor was he speaking. Brown described the incident as

“traumatic” and one of the “[s]cariest” things she had ever seen because a person she did not know

refused to leave her house. She agreed it was “strange” and “confusing.” The only sound Brown

heard Bliusovych make was “a growl.”

¶ 18   Mount Prospect police detective Miguel Trejo testified that Shorter gave him a photograph

of Bliusovych’s vehicle and license plate. The vehicle was registered to a business owned by

Bliusovych. On January 10, 2022, Trejo went to Bliusovych’s residence and spoke with him. Trejo

then interviewed other people. On January 20, 2022, Trejo arrested Bliusovych at his residence.

¶ 19   After the State rested, Bliusovych moved for a directed finding, arguing that the State failed

to establish his intent and that the evidence suggested he had been sleepwalking. The State argued

that there was no evidence of sleepwalking; rather, Bliusovych’s acts were deliberate and

intentional. The trial court reviewed the evidence in detail and found that Bliusovych’s acts,

                                                -6-
No. 1-23-1044

including rolling up his sleeves and engaging in a fight, demonstrated that he was conscious.

Accordingly, the court denied Bliusovych’s motion.

¶ 20   Dr. Rosalyn Aranas, a neurologist and sleep medicine specialist, testified for Bliusovych.

She was not tendered or qualified as an expert. Bliusovych’s first visit with Dr. Aranas was in June

2022. Bliusovych told Dr. Aranas that he had episodes of sleepwalking as a child. The frequency

of these episodes increased in 2009, mostly due to stress and alcohol. Bliusovych “wanted a

diagnosis” from Dr. Aranas. She conducted a physical exam, the results of which were normal. An

MRI of Bliusovych’s brain and EEG were also normal. Dr. Aranas diagnosed Bliusovych with

parasomnia, known as sleepwalking, and circadian rhythm disorder, due to working long hours.

¶ 21   Dr. Aranas explained that a person with non-REM parasomnia can rise from bed while in

a deep sleep and engage in complex behavior including driving and cooking. They may have no

recollection of what happened, or they may have some recollection as they go in and out between

deep sleep and an awake state. Their actions are usually nonviolent, but they could be violent, and

the person may not remember what they did during an episode. There is no objective test for

sleepwalking. Dr. Aranas’s diagnosis was based on criteria published by the American Academy

of Sleep Medicine and the American Academy of Neurology for Sleepwalking. The criteria

include (1) abnormal behavior that only arises from sleep, (2) performance of complex behavior,

(3) disorientation while ambulatory, and (4) amnesia of some or most of the event. Dr. Aranas

arrived at her diagnosis by applying these criteria to the clinical history Bliusovych provided to

her. During Bliusovych’s second appointment in June 2022, Dr. Aranas prescribed him two

medications.

                                               -7-
No. 1-23-1044

¶ 22    Dr. Aranas explained that someone who is sleepwalking “will be doing purposeful

movements.” They are “asleep in a sense,” but go in and out of being in deep sleep and being

awake. If someone who was sleepwalking was punched in the face and did not respond, then they

were not conscious of what was happening. It would take two to three minutes for the person to

wake from deep sleep. While someone is sleepwalking, they cannot comprehend the consequences

of their actions.

¶ 23    Dr. Aranas saw Bliusovych for the third time in August 2022. Bliusovych reported that the

frequency of his sleepwalking episodes had decreased.

¶ 24    Bliusovych’s fourth and final appointment was in December 2022. For the first time,

Bliusovych told Dr. Aranas that he had a sleepwalking episode in November 2021 that resulted in

criminal charges. Bliusovych stated that on the night of the incident, he had been out with friends

and slept at his friend’s apartment. He fell asleep but remembered an open door in the neighbor’s

apartment across the hall. The next thing he recalled was lying on the floor with a man holding an

object, ready to hit him. Bliusovych said he felt threatened and tried to flee, but the man pulled

him back. The next thing Bliusovych remembered was the police being in the apartment.

Bliusovych’s story confirmed Dr. Aranas’s diagnosis, and his recollection going in and out was

typical for someone who was sleepwalking.

¶ 25    Defense counsel asked Dr. Aranas for her medical opinion of whether Bliusovych was

sleepwalking during the November 2021 incident. The State objected, arguing that Dr. Aranas was

not qualified or tendered as an expert witness and, therefore, could not give her opinion of

Bliusovych’s state of mind at a time before she knew him. The trial court ruled that Dr. Aranas

                                               -8-
No. 1-23-1044

had “no way of testifying” whether Bliusovych was sleepwalking at the time of the incident and

sustained the State’s objection.

¶ 26   On cross-examination, Dr. Aranas acknowledged that her diagnosis was based on the

clinical history Bliusovych provided to her and her physical exam. She did not confirm that the

history Bliusovych provided to her was true. She did not review his prior medical records or speak

with his wife or friends. She did not review the police reports in this case or Bliusovych’s

videotaped statements to police. As far as she knew, she was the first neurologist or sleep specialist

Bliusovych had ever seen. On the same day as Bliusovych’s final appointment in December 2022,

Dr. Aranas spoke with defense counsel about testifying in this case.

¶ 27   Dr. Aranas explained that a person’s recollection is taken “with a grain of salt” because

their long-term and short-term memory can comingle, especially if a year has passed. Dr. Aranas

stated that she “could care less about the details” of what happened during the incident. Instead,

she was focused on Bliusovych’s memory lapses between his recollections, which she found to be

“a perfect example of sleepwalking.” Bliusovych told Dr. Aranas that on the night of the incident,

he was sleepwalking, walked out of his friend’s apartment, and opened the neighbor’s unlocked

door across the hallway. Bliusovych recalled that his friend’s neighbor hit him. Dr. Aranas also

noted, “[t]he patient recalls regaining consciousness, laying on the floor barefoot.” Bliusovych

also recalled that a man holding a large object was about to hit him. Bliusovych explained that he

did not know what was happening and tried to escape, but the man pulled him back inside the

apartment and they engaged in a physical altercation. Bliusovych also recalled seeing a scratch on

the man’s neck. Dr. Aranas acknowledged it was possible Bliusovych was not completely

forthcoming about what he did and did not remember. Dr. Aranas stated that before she took the

                                                 -9-
No. 1-23-1044

stand, Bliusovych informed her that he had sleepwalked the night before trial and could not

remember anything that happened.

¶ 28   Dr. Ahmer Ali, a neurologist certified in sleep medicine, testified as an expert for

Bliusovych. Dr. Ali testified that when someone is sleepwalking, parts of their brain are awake

while other parts are asleep. Both the motor cortex, which controls physical movements, and the

limbic system, which is involved with emotional responses, are awake. However, the frontal

lobe—which involves reasoning, judgment, and impulse control—and the hippocampus, which

controls memory, remain asleep. Many reported cases of sleepwalking involve violent behavior.

In 90% of those cases, the person sleepwalking was provoked. Someone who is sleepwalking is

not alert or in a “knowing state” and cannot make conscious decisions, but they may have a

“limited recollection” of the sleepwalking incident.

¶ 29   Dr. Ali did not personally know Bliusovych. Rather, he reviewed Dr. Aranas’s medical

records, the police reports, and the body camera videos from the police officers who went to

Shorter’s residence on the night of the incident. Dr. Ali opined, with a reasonable degree of medical

certainty, that Bliusovych had a sleepwalking disorder, was sleepwalking at the time of the

incident, and was not consciously aware of his conduct. Dr. Ali noted that the witnesses described

Bliusovych as looking confused and not responding, and that Shorter physically provoked

Bliusovych, which resulted in violent behavior. It takes several minutes for a person to regain

alertness and consciousness after a sleepwalking incident. Dr. Ali saw nothing in the police reports

that indicated Bliusovych was either alert or intoxicated.

¶ 30   On cross-examination, Dr. Ali acknowledged that Bliusovych was not depicted in the body

camera videos and was not present in Shorter’s apartment when the police arrived. Dr. Ali neither

                                               - 10 -
No. 1-23-1044

listened to the 911 call nor viewed either of Bliusovych's two videotaped statements to police. Dr.

Ali did not speak with any witnesses involved with the case. Dr. Ali acknowledged that in his

report, he wrote that Bliusovych and Shorter both entered the bathroom, Shorter slipped in the

bathroom, and Bliusovych placed Shorter in a chokehold in the bathroom. Dr. Ali testified that, if

he learned that he had not accurately interpreted the facts of the case, it would not change his

opinion that Bliusovych was sleepwalking.

¶ 31   When Dr. Ali wrote his report, he did not know about Bliusovych’s final appointment with

Dr. Aranas and had not reviewed her records from that appointment. Dr. Ali never met or spoke

with Dr. Aranas. Nor had he met or spoken with Bliusovych prior to writing his report. Dr. Ali

never personally examined Bliusovych and never reviewed any of Bliusovych’s other medical

records. Dr. Ali had diagnosed more than 100 people with sleepwalking. He had personally

interviewed and physically examined each of them and reviewed any available medical records.

Dr. Ali acknowledged that he was not familiar with Bliusovych’s typical behavior. He opined,

however, that Bliusovych’s behavior on the night of the incident could only be explained as

sleepwalking.

¶ 32   In rebuttal, the State recalled Detective Trejo. On January 10, 2022, Trejo and his partner,

Detective Napoleon, interviewed Bliusovych at his home and recorded their meeting on the

officers’ body cameras. Bliusovych told the officers that a friend may have had his vehicle on the

night in question but that, at the moment, his vehicle was in the shop. On the night in question,

Bliusovych went to a restaurant with family and friends and became intoxicated. Bliusovych did

not tell the officers that he had a sleepwalking disorder. The interview lasted approximately 30

minutes. The State played the video of the interview in court, and it was admitted into evidence.

                                              - 11 -
No. 1-23-1044

¶ 33   After interviewing Bliusovych, Trejo interviewed two of Bliusovych’s friends. Thereafter,

on January 20, 2022, Trejo arrested Bliusovych at his residence. At the police station, after

advising Bliusovych of his Miranda rights, Trejo interviewed Bliusovych for about 25 minutes.

This interview was recorded, and the State admitted the recording into evidence but did not publish

it to the jury. Trejo testified that their conversation was very similar to the January 10 interview.

Again, Bliusovych did not mention having a sleepwalking disorder.

¶ 34   On cross-examination, Trejo acknowledged that Bliusovych stated he did not harm anyone

and that he was incapable of harming anyone due to his condition.

¶ 35   During closing argument, defense counsel told the jury that Bliusovych was not

challenging Shorter’s injury or the fact that Bliusovych caused it. Instead, Bliusovych was

challenging the idea that he committed any of his acts knowingly, voluntarily, or intentionally.

Counsel argued that the evidence showed Bliusovych was sleepwalking, and the State did not

present any evidence that he was not. The State argued that the evidence demonstrated Bliusovych

was consciously aware of what he was doing and was not sleepwalking, regardless of his diagnosis

eight months later. The State asserted that Bliusovych’s acts were intentional and deliberate, and

if he had been sleepwalking, he would not have fled from the apartment or fled from Shorter the

next morning.

¶ 36   During deliberations, the jury asked the trial court, “[t]o the question of knowingly or

voluntary, does the prosecution have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt [Bliusovych] does not

have parasomnia or does the defense have to prove the condition?” After consulting with the

parties, the court replied, “[t]he burden is on the State to prove [Bliusovych] acted knowingly and

voluntarily. [Bliusovych] is not required to prove his innocence.”

                                               - 12 -
No. 1-23-1044

¶ 37   The jury found Bliusovych guilty of home invasion and aggravated battery.

¶ 38   Bliusovych subsequently filed both a motion for a new trial and a motion for judgment

notwithstanding the verdict (n.o.v.). In his motion for judgment n.o.v., Bliusovych argued the

evidence did not support the jury’s verdict because it did not prove that he acted knowingly and

voluntarily. Bliusovych further argued that the jury’s rejection of Dr. Ali’s and Dr. Aranas’s

unrebutted testimonies was arbitrary and against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 39   The trial court found there was sufficient evidence that directly contradicted Bliusovych’s

sleepwalking defense and could have led the jury to reject his defense and the doctors’ testimonies.

Further, the jury could have found a lack of evidence supporting Dr. Aranas’s diagnosis, as it was

based upon Bliusovych’s self-reported medical history. The court pointed out that the biggest

consideration for the jury may have been that Bliusovych claimed he had a sleepwalking condition

for nearly a decade but never sought treatment until after he was charged in this case. In addition,

he did not inform Dr. Aranas about the instant alleged sleepwalking incident until his fourth visit

with her. The court stated, “the key thing here is that the jury didn’t have to accept the defense’s

theory of the case.”

¶ 40   The court noted that an offender’s actions demonstrate intent and knowledge. Also, a fact

finder could find it difficult to believe that Bliusovych did not wake up when a man of Shorter’s

size punched him in the face. Moreover, the evidence demonstrated that Bliusovych fled when he

saw Shorter later that morning, which could have led the fact finder to infer that Bliusovych did in

fact recall the event. Accordingly, the trial court denied Bliusovych’s posttrial motions.

¶ 41   The trial court sentenced Bliusovych to concurrent prison terms of nine years for home

invasion and three years for aggravated battery.

                                               - 13 -
No. 1-23-1044

¶ 42                                     II. ANALYSIS

¶ 43   On appeal, Bliusovych contends the trial court erred when it denied his posttrial motion for

judgment n.o.v. because the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Bliusovych

claims there was no evidence that he knowingly and voluntarily committed the offenses where Dr.

Ali testified that he was sleepwalking at the time and was not consciously aware of his conduct.

Bliusovych also argues that the jury’s rejection of Dr. Aranas’s and Dr. Ali’s unimpeached

testimonies was arbitrary and against the manifest weight of the evidence. He asserts that there

was no rational explanation as to why he entered Shorter’s apartment other than the conclusion

that he was sleepwalking, and that the jury was bound to accept the proffered medical opinion.

¶ 44   The State responds that the evidence proved Bliusovych guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

where it was sufficient for the jury to infer that he was conscious and aware at the time of the

offenses. The State argues that Bliusovych cannot show that the jury’s verdict was against the

manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence undermined the credibility of both doctors’

diagnoses. The State further contends the jury was not required to accept the doctors’ testimonies

and chose to reject Bliusovych’s sleepwalking theory. The State also asserts that Bliusovych is

improperly claiming he had a diminished capacity, which is not a recognized defense in Illinois.

¶ 45   As a threshold matter, we note that the record on appeal does not include the exhibits

admitted at trial—the recording of Brown’s 911 call; Detective Trejo’s body camera video of his

interview with Bliusovych at Bliusovych’s residence on January 10, 2022; the body camera video

of a police officer speaking with Brown on the night of the incident; and several photographs

depicting Shorter’s condominium and injuries, and the rear of Bliusovych’s vehicle. As the

appellant, it was Bliusovych’s burden to submit a sufficiently complete record of the trial

                                              - 14 -
No. 1-23-1044

proceedings to support his claims of error, and any doubts arising from an incomplete record will

be resolved against him. Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 (1984).

¶ 46   Initially, we find it necessary to clarify the issue and standards on appeal. Bliusovych has

presented a convoluted argument that mistakenly intertwines unrelated standards. Bliusovych

posits that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment n.o.v. because the State failed

to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Bliusovych correctly states that when reviewing a

trial court’s ruling on a motion for judgment n.o.v., our standard of review is de novo. Lawlor v.

North American Corp. of Illinois, 2012 IL 112530, ¶ 37.

¶ 47   However, a substantial portion of Bliusovych’s argument asserts that the jury’s verdict was

against the manifest weight of the evidence because it arbitrarily rejected the doctors’ testimonies.

In Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445 (1992), our supreme court clarified that this standard is used

by the trial court “in determining whether to grant a new trial,” not when determining whether to

enter a judgment n.o.v. (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 455. Furthermore, a trial court’s ruling on a

motion for a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, rather than de novo. Id.

¶ 48   Finally, we note that in the conclusion section of his brief, Bliusovych argues the

appropriate standard on review is reasonable doubt, and he conclusively asserts that the State failed

to meet this standard.

¶ 49   In response, the State correctly notes that a ruling on a motion for judgment n.o.v. is

reviewed de novo. However, the State asserts that Bliusovych’s motion was the “functional

equivalent” of challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Hence, the State argues that we should

apply the reasonable doubt standard and consider whether, when viewing all the evidence in the

light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the

                                               - 15 -
No. 1-23-1044

offenses were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. McLaurin, 2020 IL 124563, ¶ 22

(citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).

¶ 50   We consider Bliusovych’s stated issue—challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion

for judgment n.o.v.—under de novo review. Lawlor, 2012 IL 112530, ¶ 37. The Code of Criminal

Procedure of 1963 does not explicitly address a judgment n.o.v., but it does provide for both a

directed verdict and a posttrial motion for a new trial. People v. Van Cleve, 89 Ill. 2d 298, 303

(1982); 725 ILCS 5/116-1 (West 2022). “An order directing a verdict and a judgment

notwithstanding the verdict are in substance the same, because they provide the same relief and

are applicable on the same insufficiency-of-evidence ground.” Van Cleve, 89 Ill. 2d at 303.

¶ 51   A motion for judgment n.o.v. should be granted “ ‘only in those cases in which all of the

evidence, when viewed in its aspect most favorable to the opponent, so overwhelmingly favors

movant that no contrary verdict based on the evidence could ever stand.’ ” Harris v. Thompson,

2012 IL 112525, ¶ 15 (quoting Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494, 510 (1967)).

Our supreme court explained:

       “In other words, a motion for judgment n.o.v. presents a question of law as to whether,

       when all of the evidence is considered, together with all reasonable inferences from it in

       its aspect most favorable to the plaintiffs, there is a total failure or lack of evidence to prove

       any necessary element of the plaintiff’s case. [Citation.] The standard for entry of judgment

       n.o.v. is a high one and is not appropriate if reasonable minds might differ as to inferences

       or conclusions to be drawn from the facts presented. [Citation.]” (Internal quotation marks

       omitted.) Lawlor, 2012 IL 112530, ¶ 37.

                                                 - 16 -
No. 1-23-1044

¶ 52   A motion for a directed verdict and a motion for judgment n.o.v. “raise the same questions

and are governed by the same rules of law.” Id. When ruling on a motion for judgment n.o.v., the

court does not weigh the evidence anew or determine the credibility of the witnesses but, instead,

only considers the evidence, and any inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to

the opposing party. Maple, 151 Ill. 2d at 453. Under our de novo review, we apply the same Pedrick

standard applied by the trial court. Harris, 2012 IL 112525, ¶ 15. “Most importantly, a judgment

n.o.v. may not be granted merely because a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence.”

Maple, 151 Ill. 2d at 453.

¶ 53   To prove Bliusovych guilty of home invasion as charged in this case, the State had to show

that Bliusovych, not being a peace officer acting in the line of duty, without authority, knowingly

entered Shorter’s dwelling and remained therein until he knew or had reason to know that one or

more persons were present, and he intentionally injured Shorter therein, by grabbing him and

striking him about the body. 720 ILCS 5/19-6(a)(2) (West 2020). To prove Bliusovych guilty of

aggravated battery, the State had to show that, in committing a battery, Bliusovych strangled

Shorter by grabbing him about the neck, impeding his normal course of breathing. 720 ILCS

5/12-3.05(a)(5) (West 2020). A person commits battery when he knowingly, without legal

justification, by any means, causes bodily harm to an individual or makes physical contact of an

insulting or provoking nature with an individual. 720 ILCS 5/12-3 (West 2020).

¶ 54   Here, and at trial, the only element of the offenses challenged by Bliusovych is whether he

committed the offenses “knowingly” and “intentionally.” A person acts “with knowledge of the

nature or attendant circumstances of [their] conduct, described by the statute defining the offense,

when [they are] consciously aware that [their] conduct is of that nature or that those circumstances

                                               - 17 -
No. 1-23-1044

exist.” 720 ILCS 5/4-5(a) (West 2020). Due to its very nature, knowledge is usually proven by

circumstantial evidence, and thus, may be inferred from the facts and circumstances in the case.

People v. Slabon, 2018 IL App (1st) 150149, ¶ 35. Whether Bliusovych acted with knowledge was

a factual question for the jury to decide. People v. Jones, 2023 IL 127810, ¶ 27.

¶ 55   A person acts intentionally when their conscious objective or purpose is to accomplish the

result or engage in the conduct described by the statute defining the offense. 720 ILCS 5/4-4 (West

2020). Similar to knowledge, intent is usually proven by circumstantial evidence and inferred from

the surrounding circumstances in the case. People v. Maggette, 195 Ill. 2d 336, 354 (2001).

Whether Bliusovych acted with the requisite intent is also determined by the trier of fact. Id.

¶ 56   Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the record reveals that the

evidence did not so overwhelmingly favor Bliusovych such that the jury’s guilty verdicts could

never stand. Harris, 2012 IL 112525, ¶ 15. The record reveals that the evidence was sufficient for

the jury to find that Bliusovych acted with the requisite intent for home invasion when he

knowingly entered Shorter’s condominium and remained therein even after encountering Shorter.

Shorter testified that within moments of discovering Bliusovych in his living room, Shorter

punched Bliusovych in the face, knocking him down onto the couch. It is not inconceivable that a

rational fact finder could find it hard to believe that, even if Bliusovych was initially sleepwalking

when he entered Shorter’s condominium, he did not awake when punched in the face. When

making this same finding, the trial court took special note of Shorter’s size. The jury and the trial

court were able to make such observations, as is their purview. People v. Vega, 2018 IL App (1st)

160619, ¶ 44 (“we will not substitute our own judgment for the trier of fact on issues regarding the

weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses.”).

                                                - 18 -
No. 1-23-1044

¶ 57   If the jury concluded Bliusovych would have awoken and become alert at that point, then

it could easily infer that Bliusovych committed every act thereafter knowingly and intentionally.

This includes Bliusovych’s refusal to leave the condominium after Shorter repeatedly demanded

that he do so, all while pointing at the rear door. The jury could further find that Bliusovych’s acts

of rolling up his sleeves and turning his watch upside down indicated that he knowingly and

intentionally prepared himself to attack Shorter. The evidence demonstrated that Bliusovych made

fists with both of his hands, thrust them down at his sides while yelling, and lunged into Shorter’s

chest with his shoulder. These acts also support an inference that Bliusovych knowingly and

intentionally attacked Shorter.

¶ 58   Shorter testified that Bliusovych made a quick “maneuver” and immediately placed Shorter

in a chokehold using his forearms. As Shorter tried to pull away, Bliusovych gripped “tighter and

tighter” around his neck until Shorter could no longer breathe and nearly lost consciousness. A

rational jury could conclude from these circumstances that Bliusovych acted knowingly and

intentionally when he committed the aggravated battery. Moreover, the evidence demonstrated

that Bliusovych fled from both Shorter’s condominium that night and the parking lot later that

morning, upon seeing Shorter. The jury could have inferred that Bliusovych’s acts of fleeing

indicated that he was fully aware of what he had done to Shorter a few hours earlier.

¶ 59   In addition, the record supports that it is not unfathomable that the jury could reject the

doctors’ testimonies as not credible. Bliusovych claimed he had a sleepwalking disorder for many

years but never sought medical care until six months after he was charged with the instant offenses.

Dr. Aranas testified that Bliusovych came to her because he “wanted a diagnosis.” A jury could

find Bliusovych’s timing and purpose in consulting Dr. Aranas highly suspicious. Adding to that,

                                                - 19 -
No. 1-23-1044

the evidence demonstrated that Bliusovych did not mention the instant alleged sleepwalking

incident to Dr. Aranas until his fourth and final appointment with her, six months after he began

seeking her help. Coincidently, that same day, defense counsel spoke with Dr. Aranas about

testifying in this case. In light of these circumstances, it is foreseeable that a jury could find Dr.

Aranas’s testimony incredible.

¶ 60   The record further supports that the jury could have faulted Dr. Ali’s testimony. Dr. Ali

testified that he did not know Bliusovych, never personally examined him, and had not spoken

with him prior to writing his report. Nonetheless, Dr. Ali opined that Bliusovych was sleepwalking

at the time of this incident. Dr. Ali based his opinion on his review of Dr. Aranas’s medical notes

from her first three appointments with Bliusovych, the police reports, and the body camera videos

from the police officers who went to Shorter’s residence on the night of the incident.

¶ 61   Dr. Ali admitted that when he wrote his report, he did not know about Bliusovych’s final

appointment with Dr. Aranas and never reviewed her records from that appointment. Dr. Ali never

met or spoke with Dr. Aranas. He did not speak with any witnesses involved in the case. He did

not listen to Brown’s 911 call or view either of the two videotaped statements in which Bliusovych

discussed what he did that night. The record indicates that Dr. Ali wrote in his report that Shorter

slipped in the bathroom and that the chokehold occurred in the bathroom, which was not an

accurate reflection of the facts. Yet, Dr. Ali testified that even if he had inaccurately interpreted

the facts of the case, he would not change his opinion that Bliusovych was sleepwalking during

the incident. Based on this evidence, a jury could rationally reject Bliusovych's theory that he was

sleepwalking at the time of the incident.

                                                - 20 -
No. 1-23-1044

¶ 62    After reviewing all evidence presented at trial, together with all the reasonable inferences

that can be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that

Bliusovych has not satisfied the high standard required for entry of judgment n.o.v. Lawlor, 2012

IL 112530, ¶ 37. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not err in denying Bliusovych’s

motion for judgment n.o.v.

¶ 63    To the extent Bliusovych is attempting to challenge the trial court’s denial of his motion

for a new trial by arguing that the jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence,

we find no error. It is well-settled that the trier of fact is not required to accept an expert witness’s

opinion. People v. Terrell, 185 Ill. 2d 467, 496-97 (1998). As discussed above, there were many

factors and inferences which could have led the jury to reasonably determine that the testimonies

of Dr. Aranas and Dr. Ali were not credible. The record demonstrates that, in denying Bliusovych’s

motion for a new trial, the trial court discussed detailed facts from the case and found there was

sufficient evidence that directly contradicted Bliusovych's sleepwalking defense and could have

led the jury to reject both his defense and the doctors’ testimonies. Consequently, we find the trial

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bliusovych's motion for a new trial. Maple, 151 Ill.

2d at 455.

¶ 64    Finally, we find the State’s assertion that Bliusovych improperly presented a “diminished

capacity” defense forfeited because it was not raised in the trial court. It is well-settled that issues

or arguments not raised in the trial court are generally forfeited on appeal. People v. O’Neal, 104

Ill. 2d 399, 407 (1984). The rule of forfeiture applies to the State as well as the defendant. Id.

¶ 65                                     III. CONCLUSION

¶ 66    For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

                                                 - 21 -
No. 1-23-1044

¶ 67   Affirmed.

                   - 22 -