Court Opinion

ID: 9524092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:49:57.507517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:49.647076
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FITZGERALD delivered the opinion of the court: Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Will County, defendant, Rayshun Pelt, Sr., was found guilty of aggravated battery of a child, his infant son, Rayshun Pelt, Jr., and first degree felony murder predicated on aggravated battery of a child. Defendant was found not guilty of first degree knowing murder and involuntary manslaughter. After merging defendant’s conviction for aggravated battery of a child with his felony-murder conviction, the court sentenced defendant to 46 years’ imprisonment. A divided appellate court reversed defendant’s convictions. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand this cause for further proceedings. BACKGROUND On February 13, 1997, at approximately 4:30 p.m., police officer Donald Draksler responded to a radio announcement concerning an infant who was not breathing at a residence in the Village of Bolingbrook. Once inside the residence, Draksler went to an upstairs bedroom and observed defendant sitting on the edge of a bed, holding his 95-day-old son, Rayshun Pelt, Jr., in his lap. Defendant was rocking the infant back and forth and saying, “Wake up, baby, wake up.” Draksler noticed that the infant had a yellowish cast and was not moving or breathing. He also could not detect a pulse. Draksler began cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the infant, and the infant regurgitated what appeared to be formula. He flipped the infant over and noticed stiffening in the back and the legs, clenching of the fists, and that the infant’s temperature was below normal. In the ambulance, he noticed a bruise on the right side of the head and a purplish discoloration along the rib cage. A paramedic in the ambulance concluded that the infant was deceased. This paramedic and another police officer also noted a bruise on the infant’s cheek. The infant was later pronounced dead at the hospital. A forensic pathologist, Dr. Shaku Teas, conducted an autopsy of the infant on February 14, 1997. She observed that the infant had external injuries on his face and head, including a “large boggy area” on the back of the head, bruising on the left temple, two bruises “right behind the eye and in the temple area,” two bruises on the left cheek, a large bruise on the right cheek, as well as a scrape mark on the lower lip. In addition, she noted fractures to the infant’s skull sustained at the time of death. The autopsy further revealed healing fractures on the ribs, and “obvious hemorrhage underneath the scalp.” The rib injuries were anywhere from 10 days to one month old. Dr. Teas stated that these injuries would make the infant “crabby and crying, but doesn’t have to necessarily warrant a visit to the physician or emergency room.” She also noted wrist and ankle fractures that likely occurred days before the death of the infant. In Dr. Teas’ opinion, the cause of death of the infant was “cerebral injuries due to multiple blunt force trauma.” She classified all of the injuries as “non-accidental.” Detective Raymond Browne interviewed the defendant on Friday, February 14, 1997. Defendant initially stated that he was unaware of any problems with the infant the previous day until Kimberly Papa, the infant’s mother, came home from work and later went in the bedroom to check on the infant. Defendant heard Papa yelling his name, and she told him that the baby was not breathing. Defendant’s story evolved, however, as Detective Browne confronted him with the existence of injuries to the infant which were not consistent with his story. Defendant eventually stated that the baby had not stopped crying since it arrived home from the hospital in February. Defendant made a written statement in which he stated, “I was holding him and he wouldn’t stop crying. I got upset and tried to throw him onto his bed, but I missed and he hit the dresser.” In a tape-recorded statement, defendant said that the infant “kept on crying,” and that he tried to throw the infant on the bed, but “I guess I threw him too far, cause [szc] he hit the dresser.” Defendant picked him up, put him on his stomach, placed a blanket on him, and left the room. Defendant reiterated the veracity of an earlier statement that when he came back, he hurt his leg and grabbed it, causing him to fall on the infant. He denied that the infant hit a knob on the dresser. Kimberly Papa, the infant’s mother, stated that she could have caused the injuries to the infant’s ankle, wrist, and rib in incidents occurring “weeks” before the death, including one incident where she tried to force a sleeper on the baby. Defendant was indicted on three counts of first degree murder and one count of aggravated battery of a child. Prior to trial, the State nol-prossed count I, that defendant committed murder with the intent to do great bodily harm. 720 ILCS 5/9 — 1(a)(1) (West 1996). The jury found defendant not guilty of first degree murder based upon the charge that he, without lawful justification, caused the death of his son, knowing that his acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm (720 ILCS 5/9 — 1(a)(2) (West 1996)). The jury also found defendant not guilty of involuntary manslaughter (720 ILCS 5/9 — 3(a) (West 1996)). The jury found defendant guilty of aggravated battery of a child, in that defendant knowingly caused great bodily harm to his son, a child under the age of 13 years (720 ILCS 5/12 — 4.3 (West 1996)) and first degree felony murder, in that defendant caused the death of his son while committing the forcible felony of aggravated battery of a child (720 ILCS 5/9— 1(a)(3) (West 1996)). At sentencing, the trial court merged the aggravated battery of a child conviction with the first degree felony murder conviction. The trial judge sentenced him to 46 years in prison. On appeal, the appellate court held that the finding of not guilty for knowing murder was legally inconsistent with the finding that defendant was guilty of aggravated battery of a child. No. 3 — 00—0255 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). The appellate court reversed defendant’s conviction for aggravated battery of a child pursuant to People v. Klingenberg, 172 Ill. 2d 270 (1996). The court further held that “[wjithout a valid conviction on the aggravated battery charge, the conviction for felony-murder which that crime supports must also be reversed.” The appellate court alternatively held that even if there was no inconsistency, our decision in People v. Morgan, 197 Ill. 2d 404 (2001), required that aggravated battery could not be a predicate offense for felony murder. In a special concurrence and dissent, Justice Homer agreed with the appellate court majority that, in light of Morgan, defendant’s conviction for felony murder could not stand. Justice Homer, however, did not find the acquittal for knowing murder to be inconsistent with the finding of guilt of aggravated battery. We granted the State’s petition for leave to appeal. 177 Ill. 2d R. 315. Because the appellate court judgment presents only issues of law, our review is de novo. People v. Johnson, 206 Ill. 2d 348, 359 (2002). ANALYSIS The State initially argues that we should reverse the appellate court because the jury’s finding of guilt on aggravated battery of a child was not inconsistent with a finding of not guilty of knowing murder. If the findings are inconsistent, the State asserts, this court should decline to follow our decisions in People v. Frias, 99 Ill. 2d 193 (1983), and People v. Klingenberg, 172 Ill. 2d 270 (1996), or that the court should find any error to be harmless. Defendant responds that the verdicts are legally inconsistent, and the court should continue to follow Klingenberg. Subsequent to briefing and argument in this matter, we reconsidered and overruled Klingenberg. People v. Jones, 207 Ill. 2d 122 (2003). In overruling Klingenberg, we held that criminal “defendants in Illinois can no longer challenge convictions on the sole basis that they are legally inconsistent with acquittals on other charges.” Jones, 207 Ill. 2d at 133-34. For this reason, we need not examine whether the jury’s findings were inconsistent because even if they were, the jury’s findings of guilt stand. Therefore, we reverse the appellate court on this issue. We turn to the alternate holding of the appellate court. According to both the majority and the dissent, defendant’s conviction for felony murder was improperly predicated upon aggravated battery, in contravention of People v. Morgan, 197 Ill. 2d 404 (2001). Defendant accurately asserts that the State failed to raise this argument in its petition for leave to appeal to this court (see 177 Ill. 2d R. 315(b)(3) (the petition shall state “the points relied upon for reversal of the judgment of the Appellate Court”)). A party’s failure to raise an argument in the petition for leave to appeal may be deemed a waiver of that argument. People v. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159, 169 (2003). However, the rule of waiver is a limitation on the parties and not on the court. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d at 169. We choose to address the issue. The State contends that the facts of this case are squarely on point with People v. Viser, 62 Ill. 2d 568 (1975), rather than People v. Morgan, 197 Ill. 2d 404 (2001), and therefore defendant’s felony-murder conviction based on the predicate of aggravated battery of a child should be upheld. Defendant responds that defendant’s conduct was similar to that in Morgan, in that the acts charged arose from and were inherent in the act of murder itself; thus, those acts cannot serve as predicate felonies for the charge of felony murder. We find that Morgan controls the present matter. In Morgan, we discussed the circumstances in which forcible felonies may serve as predicates for the charge of felony murder. The Morgan defendant, who was 14 years old at the time, shot his grandmother in the back as she was fleeing her home. He attempted to shoot her again as she was lying on the ground in the front yard, but the gun jammed. The Morgan defendant was convicted, inter alia, of felony murder predicated on both aggravated battery and aggravated discharge of a firearm. The appellate court noted that to allow such a conviction for felony murder to stand could “effectively eliminate the second degree murder statute” and also “eliminate the need for the State to prove an intentional or knowing killing in most murder cases.” People v. Morgan, 307 Ill. App. 3d 707, 712 (1999). The appellate court held that “the predicate felony underlying a charge of felony murder must involve conduct with a felonious purpose other than the killing itself.” Morgan, 307 Ill. App. 3d at 714. The appellate court therefore reversed the defendant’s conviction. On appeal, we found that a “cause and effect relationship” between the shooting and the killing was “not so clear.” Morgan, 197 Ill. 2d at 447. We agreed with the appellate court that where “the acts constituting forcible felonies arise from and are inherent in the act of murder itself, those acts cannot serve as predicate felonies for a charge of felony murder.” Morgan, 197 Ill. 2d at 447. In so concluding, we also approved of the appellate court’s holding regarding felonious purpose. Morgan, 197 Ill. 2d at 458. Applying these principles, we held that the forcible felonies underlying the murder charge “were acts that were inherent in, and arose out of, the fatal shootings.” Morgan, 197 Ill. 2d at 447. Our task here is to discern from defendant’s conduct whether defendant’s aggravated battery was an act that was inherent in, and arose out of, the killing of the infant. Like Morgan, the cause and effect relationship between the aggravated battery and the killing is muddled. Defendant’s statement indicated that he was upset when the infant would not stop crying, and that he tried to throw him to the bed. He stated that he apparently threw him too far “[bejcause he hit the dresser.” The act of throwing the infant forms the basis of defendant’s aggravated battery conviction, but it is also the same act underlying the killing. Therefore, as in Morgan, it is difficult to conclude that the predicate felony underlying the charge of felony murder involved conduct with a felonious purpose other than the conduct which killed the infant. We also note that the present matter illustrates our apprehension that to permit such a felony-murder charge of this nature would “ ‘eliminate the need for the State to prove an intentional or knowing killing in most murder cases.’ ” Morgan, 197 Ill. 2d at 447, quoting Morgan, 307 Ill. App. 3d at 712. The prosecution attempted to establish a knowing killing by defendant. The jury rejected this charge and instead found defendant guilty of aggravated battery of the infant. Our holding ensures that defendant will not be punished as a murderer where the State failed in proving to the jury that a knowing murder occurred. Accordingly, we hold that the acts charged here cannot serve as the predicate felony to the charge of felony murder. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we reverse that part of the appellate court’s judgment that reversed defendant’s conviction for aggravated battery of a child and we affirm the circuit court’s judgment of guilt of this offense. However, we agree with the appellate court’s holding that aggravated battery improperly served as the predicate for felony murder and thus we affirm that part of the appellate court’s judgment reversing defendant’s conviction for the offense of felony murder. This cause is remanded to the circuit court for sentencing on defendant’s conviction of aggravated battery of a child. Appellate court judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; circuit court judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded.