Court Opinion

ID: 9955909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 18:03:35.640314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:39.500289
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (1st) 221862-U
                                                                                    FIFTH DIVISION
                                                                                      March 29, 2024

                                            No. 1-22-1862

 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. SE 650353
                                                                )
 NADER ELASSAR,                                                 )   Honorable
                                                                )   Eric Michael Sauceda,
           Defendant-Appellant.                                 )   Judge, presiding.

           JUSTICE MIKVA delivered the judgment of the court.
           Presiding Justice Mitchell and Justice Lyle concurred in the judgment.

                                              ORDER

¶1        Held: Defendant’s reckless driving conviction is affirmed, where the trial evidence
                showed defendant’s vehicle sped through a residential neighborhood on a street on
                which pedestrians were walking.

¶2        Following a bench trial, defendant Nader Elassar was found guilty of misdemeanor reckless

driving and sentenced to six months of court supervision. On appeal, he argues the State failed to

prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, where the evidence did not show he drove with a

willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
No. 1-22-1862

¶3                                      I. BACKGROUND

¶4     Mr. Elassar was charged by misdemeanor complaint with reckless driving (625 ILCS 5/11-

503(a)(1) (West 2020)), premised on an incident on September 7, 2020, in which he drove a vehicle

down a residential roadway at a “high rate of speed over the posted 25 mile per hour speed limit

and almost [struck] pedestrians without slowing down.”

¶5     At trial, Palatine police officer Tyler Gratz testified that on September 7, 2020, around 5:23

p.m., he was on duty in a marked police vehicle observing traffic at the intersection of Quentin

Road and Lake Cook Road. Officer Gratz pulled out into traffic. A 1995 tan Honda Accord in front

of him “began driving evasively” by increasing its speed, creating distance, turning southbound

onto Quentin, and taking a sharp left onto Woodland Road into a neighborhood. Officer Gratz

waited at the two adjacent exits of the “horseshoe” shaped neighborhood.

¶6     After a few moments, the vehicle drove back from Woodland onto Quentin. Officer Gratz

drove behind the vehicle and attempted to get its license plate. The vehicle immediately increased

its speed and took a sharp left onto west Center Road into a residential area. Officer Gratz followed

the vehicle into the residential area. He knew Center Road was a single road leading to a dead end

and watched the vehicle from a distance. Officer Gratz observed the vehicle drive to the dead end,

make a U-turn, and drive past him in the opposite direction on the narrow roadway. Officer Gratz

got the vehicle’s license plate and identified Mr. Elassar in court as the vehicle’s driver and sole

occupant.

¶7     As the vehicle passed Officer Gratz, it immediately increased its speed down Center Road.

Based on his training and experience, Officer Gratz estimated the vehicle increased its speed to a

“minimum of 20 miles per hour over the [25-mile-per-hour] speed limit.” He saw multiple people

walking down that residential roadway, specifically, a couple and an elderly woman walking her

                                                -2-
No. 1-22-1862

dog. The road was narrow and did not have sidewalks, so the pedestrians had to walk along the

road. He observed the pedestrians step to the side out of the way of Mr. Elassar’s vehicle. Officer

Gratz lost sight of the vehicle since it was travelling at a “high rate of speed.” Officer Gratz drove

past the pedestrians on the side of the roadway and asked if they were okay. The pedestrians

pointed in Mr. Elassar’s direction. Officer Gratz never activated his emergency lights as he “felt

that would endanger the public even more.”

¶8     Officer Gratz ran the vehicle’s license plate, learned the vehicle was registered to Mr.

Elassar, and radioed to other units regarding the speeding vehicle. He was unable to locate Mr.

Elassar’s vehicle again that day. Six days later, Palatine police officer John Deluca conducted a

traffic stop of Mr. Elassar in his vehicle. Officer Gratz was called to the scene, positively identified

Mr. Elassar as the driver of the vehicle in the September 7, 2020, incident, and arrested him.

¶9     On cross-examination, Officer Gratz acknowledged that his police report did not mention

that he asked the pedestrians whether they were okay or that they were pointing at the vehicle.

¶ 10   The trial court found Mr. Elassar guilty of reckless driving. The court observed that simply

driving over the speed limit normally “wouldn’t be enough for a reckless driving charge” and

would warrant a speeding citation. However, it stated “that’s not what we have here.” The court

found that Mr. Elassar’s actions “rose to the level of willful and wanton disregard,” as he sped and

took multiple turns in and out of a residential area while there were pedestrians in the street who

had to step out of the way to avoid his vehicle.

¶ 11   The trial court sentenced Mr. Elassar to 6 months’ court supervision, a defensive driving

course, and 30 hours of independent community service. Mr. Elassar now appeals.

                                                   -3-
No. 1-22-1862

¶ 12                                    II. JURISDICTION

¶ 13   Mr. Elassar was sentenced on October 28, 2022, and filed a timely notice of appeal on

November 22, 2022. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under article VI, section 6, of the Illinois

Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6), Illinois Supreme Court Rules 603 (eff. Feb 6, 2013)

and 606 (eff. July 1, 2017), and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(b) (eff. July 1, 2017), which

governs appeals from orders imposing court supervision.

¶ 14                                      III. ANALYSIS

¶ 15   On appeal, Mr. Elassar asserts that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt of reckless driving, where the evidence did not show he drove his vehicle with a willful or

wanton disregard for the safety of other persons.

¶ 16   As an initial matter, Mr. Elassar acknowledges that his term of court supervision has ended,

but asserts, and the State concedes, that this appeal is not moot. We agree. See People v. Jordan,

218 Ill. 2d 255, 263 (2006) (finding an appeal from a disposition of supervision is not moot where

the defendant has successfully concluded the supervision, as a defendant may still suffer “collateral

legal consequences” from the disposition).

¶ 17   When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence at trial, our 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. McLaurin, 2020 IL 124563, ¶ 22 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,

319 (1979)). We will not retry the defendant when reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence. People v. Nere, 2018 IL 122566, ¶ 69. Rather, it is the role of the trier of fact “to

determine the credibility of witnesses, to weigh their testimony, to resolve conflicts in the

                                                -4-
No. 1-22-1862

evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.” People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d

306, 338 (2000).

¶ 18    The trier of fact need not “disregard inferences that flow normally from the evidence before

it,” or “search out all possible explanations consistent with innocence and raise them to a level of

reasonable doubt.” People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 70. “The testimony of a single witness

is sufficient to convict if the testimony is positive and credible, even where it is contradicted by

the defendant.” People v. Gray, 2017 IL 120958, ¶ 36. We “must allow all reasonable inferences

from the record in favor of the prosecution” (People v. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d 311, 334 (2010)), and

will not reverse a conviction unless the evidence is “so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory

that it justifies a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt” (People v. Bradford, 2016 IL

118674, ¶ 12).

¶ 19    To sustain Mr. Elassar’s conviction for reckless driving as charged, the State had to prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that he drove his vehicle with a “willful or wanton disregard for the

safety of persons or property.” 625 ILCS 5/11-503(a)(1) (West 2020). Section 4-6 of the Criminal

Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/4-6 (West 2020)) provides that “[a] person is reckless or acts recklessly

when that person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances

exist or that a result will follow,” and “that disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard

of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation.” Id.; see People v. Sienkiewicz,

208 Ill. 2d 1, 11 (2003) (noting the mental state for reckless driving and for an offense based on

recklessness under the Criminal Code are “equivalent”).

¶ 20   This court has recognized that reckless driving may be shown by “a driver’s conscious

disregard for the particular surroundings and circumstances that rises to the level of willfulness

and wantonness.” People v. Markley, 2013 IL App (3d) 120201, ¶ 27 (citing People v. Paarlberg,

                                                 -5-
No. 1-22-1862

243 Ill. App. 3d 731 (1993)). “The required mental state for reckless driving is often implied by

the manner in which defendant operated his vehicle.” People v. Utsinger, 2013 IL App (3d)

110536, ¶ 23. While “speed alone is insufficient to support a conviction for reckless driving,”

excessive speed will constitute evidence of reckless driving, as will “erratic driving, driving under

the influence, or driving on the wrong side of the roadway.” People v. Foster, 176 Ill. App. 3d 406,

410 (1988). “Actual damage to persons or property” is not necessary to establish guilt. People v.

Tuell, 97 Ill. App. 3d 849, 852 (1981). “It is for the trier of fact to determine whether the allegations

and the evidence constituted willful and wanton misconduct.” Id.

¶ 21    Here, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find that a rational

trier of fact could have found Mr. Elassar guilty of reckless driving beyond a reasonable doubt.

Officer Gratz testified that he observed Mr. Elassar driving evasively away from him, speeding,

and turning sharply into a residential neighborhood. As Officer Gratz followed Mr. Elassar into

the neighborhood, he observed Mr. Elassar make a U-turn and accelerate past him the other way.

Based on his experience, Officer Gratz estimated Mr. Elassar was driving at least 20 miles over

the 25-mile-per-hour speed limit. See People v. Hampton, 96 Ill. App. 3d 728, 730 (1981) (finding

an officer’s estimate of a vehicle’s speed was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for

speeding). Officer Gratz also observed multiple pedestrians, including an elderly woman with her

dog, walking in the narrow street and moving out of the way of Mr. Elassar’s speeding vehicle as

it traveled past them at almost double the speed limit.

¶ 22    The testimony of a single witness is sufficient to convict. Gray, 2017 IL 120958, ¶ 36.

Officer Gratz’s testimony recounting his observations, which the trial court accepted, was

sufficient evidence to show that Mr. Elassar drove his vehicle with a conscious disregard for the

particular surroundings and circumstances. See Tuell, 97 Ill. App. 3d at 852-53 (finding a vehicle

                                                  -6-
No. 1-22-1862

that forced a pedestrian to run out of its way showed a willful disregard for the pedestrian’s safety

sufficient to establish reckless driving); People v. Burch, 19 Ill. App. 3d 360, 361-62, 364 (1974)

(the defendant’s driving constituted willful and wanton misconduct where he drove over the speed

limit past three vehicles and three small children standing on the side of the road, forcing an

oncoming vehicle to pull off the road to avoid a collision). A rational trier of fact therefore could

find that Mr. Elassar drove with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others and was guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt of driving recklessly. See Foster, 176 Ill. App. 3d at 410.

¶ 23   Mr. Elassar argues that the State failed to show he acted with willful or wanton disregard

for the safety of other persons. Specifically, he contends that excessive speeding alone could not

support his conviction for reckless driving, the speed at which his vehicle traveled over the speed

limit was based only on Officer Gratz’s estimate, and the pedestrians stepping out of the way of

his vehicle were not necessarily attempting to avoid being hit but properly giving him the right-

of-way as the area had no sidewalks. However, these matters implicate the weight of the evidence,

credibility assessments, and inferences drawn from the evidence, all of which were matters for the

trial court to determine. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d at 338. Moreover, it was for the trial court to

determine whether the evidence demonstrated that Mr. Elassar’s conduct reflected a willful or

wanton mental state. Id. We find that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable

doubt, based on the evidence, that Mr. Elassar committed reckless driving by driving with willful

or wanton disregard for the safety of others.

¶ 24                                    IV. CONCLUSION

¶ 25   For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 26   Affirmed.

                                                -7-