People v. Hackett

2020 IL App (4th) 170818-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SIOBHAN HACKETT, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-17-0818

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

April 15, 2020

NOTICE

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Vermilion County

No. 17CF374

Honorable Thomas M. O'Shaughnessy, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice Holder White concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the State presented sufficient evidence to prove defendant guilty of threatening a public official beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶ 2 Following a bench trial, defendant, Siobhan Hackett, was convicted of threatening a public official (720 ILCS 5/12-9 (West 2016)) and sentenced to a two-year term of probation. Defendant appeals, arguing the State failed to prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 A. The Charge

¶ 5 The State charged defendant with threatening a public official (720 ILCS 5/12-9 (West 2016)), alleging that on May 24, 2017, she indirectly communicated a threat to a Danville police officer—through an employee of the Housing Authority of the City of Danville (HACD)—that was related to the officer's public status and would place him in reasonable apprehension of immediate or future bodily harm.

¶ 6 B. Bench Trial

¶ 7 Philip Coon and Doug Miller testified for the State at defendant's bench trial. After the court denied her motion for a directed verdict, defendant also testified.

¶ 8 1. Evidence Presented

¶ 9 a. Defendant, Doug Miller, and Philip Coon

¶ 10 Defendant testified that she lived in public housing in the Fair Oaks Housing Complex (Fair Oaks), which was owned and operated by HACD. As a condition of her subsidized housing, defendant had to abide by the terms of her lease. Defendant testified that HACD could initiate eviction proceedings if a tenant was issued a certain number or type of lease violation tickets.

¶ 11 Doug Miller, a Danville police officer, testified that HACD contracted with the Danville Police Department (DPD) to enforce their leases. Miller further testified that he served as "the direct liaison between [HACD] and the police department." Miller was one of three officers on DPD's Problem-Oriented Policing Unit (POP Unit). The POP Unit was assigned to work with HACD and empowered to issue lease violation tickets on HACD's behalf. Miller testified that he spent half of each shift in the Fair Oaks area, received daily emails "from the administration there," and met weekly "with the asset manager, property manager[,] and the executive director."

¶ 12 Philip Coon testified he was an "asset manager" with HACD and his office was located in Fair Oaks. Coon's duties as an asset manager required him to "deal with rent,evictions, any tenant issues ***." Coon stated he met with the POP Unit "at least once a month" and received biweekly reports and copies of lease violation tickets issued by the POP Unit. Coon testified that prior to May 2017, defendant had received multiple lease violation tickets from police officers, including for "having an unapproved pet" in her apartment, "obstructing a peace officer," and "having a barred individual."

¶ 13 b. Execution of the Search Warrant

¶ 14 On May 19, 2017, Danville police officers, including Miller, executed a search warrant at defendant's apartment. Miller testified that prior to the warrant's execution, the officers were briefed on, in part, the people who likely lived or spent a significant amount of time at defendant's apartment. Miller testified those people included defendant's boyfriend, Reginald Watts, her son, Javon Hackett, and her nephew, Aaron Moss. Miller further testified Watts had a felony firearm conviction, Javon "had a prior firearms case," and Moss had "been mentioned in several police reports taken by [DPD] regarding shootings or firearms."

¶ 15 Miller testified that before 8:30 a.m. on May 19, 2017, "10 to 12 officers" arrived at defendant's front door with "a knock-and-announce search warrant." Defendant stated she was awoken by the banging on her door and officers shouting "Danville police." Defendant was naked and "started hollering" that she was coming to the door to let in the officers. However, defendant testified that before she could open the door, the officers, who were armed and wearing "camouflage uniforms with helmet, like, gear[,]" forced entry into defendant's apartment by breaking her door down with "a ram." Defendant said the officers told her to sit on the floor in her room and ordered Watts to lay face down on the floor. According to defendant, the officers did not allow defendant to put on clothes until "after they searched the bathroom, andthey had my son and his girlfriend go downstairs and then they searched they room[,]" which lasted "about ten minutes."

¶ 16 Miller testified marijuana and a firearm were recovered during the search. Defendant stated that after the search, everyone in the apartment was detained at the police station for approximately one hour. Defendant further testified that Miller gave her a lease violation ticket for possession of a firearm before she was released from police custody. Coon testified that he received a report of the search that indicated a firearm was recovered. The report also indicated that a barred individual, Watts, and an unapproved pet were located in the apartment. Based on the report, Coon initiated eviction proceedings.

¶ 17 c. The Alleged Threat

¶ 18 Coon testified that at approximately 10 a.m. on May 24, 2017, he went to defendant's apartment to serve her with an eviction notice. Then, according to Coon, "a good hour later[,]" defendant went to Coon's office to schedule an informal hearing with HACD's executive director to contest her eviction. Coon testified that the following occurred during his interaction with defendant:

"While I was typing the informal hearing notice, that's when she was just talking about the eviction. She was visibly upset, pacing around, and then she was just saying different things that kind of alerted my attention, you know. Specifically she said, you know, this is—you know, this is little Danville, it's not Chicago. You know, how would Sergeant Miller like if I kicked down his doors and put a gun in his wife and kids' mouths? You know, if anypolice officer was in Chicago, you know, they better hope they don't go to Chicago or something may happen."

After defendant left, Coon, who was "alarmed" by defendant's statements, sent an email to the executive director about the interaction and copied Miller on the email. The email was admitted into evidence without objection and set forth the following:

"[Defendant] came into the office a few minutes ago. Her and I are going to do an informal grievance hearing tomorrow at 10:00am [sic]. She was not very pleasant, she basically was dishing out threats towards Sgt. Miller and Danville Police. [Defendant]: 'Cops better watch out, my family will bust down Miller's doors and put a pistol in his wife and kids['] mouths. He better not be going to Chicago any time soon.' She stated she has a lawyer and [is] supposedly filing a complaint with police department today."

¶ 19 Defendant denied threatening Miller. Defendant testified that she instead stated: "[H]ow would they like it if someone did them like that while they in the house naked and someone come in they house with they kids and they had guns to they head while they in the house butt naked."

¶ 20 2. Verdict

¶ 21 The trial court found that the State proved defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶ 22 C. Posttrial Motion and Sentence

¶ 23 Defendant filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that (1) she did not intend to make a threat but "was simply expressing frustration at the fact that Danville Police had busted down her door, held her naked at gunpoint, arrested her and all of her family members, failed to charge anyone with a criminal offense, and then had her evicted from her apartment" and (2) "it [was] not reasonable to assume that an employee of an apartment complex would relay to officers the frustrated statements of someone to whom he just gave an eviction notice." The trial court denied defendant's motion and sentenced her to 24 months of probation.

¶ 24 This appeal followed.

¶ 25 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 26 Defendant argues that the State failed to prove her guilty of threatening a public official (720 ILCS 5/12-9 (West 2016)) beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, she contends the State failed to prove that she (1) made a "true threat," or, alternatively, (2) knew Coon would convey the alleged threat to Miller.

¶ 27 A. Standard of Review and theEssential Elements of the Charged Offense

¶ 28 When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against her on appeal, a reviewing court must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Gray, 2017 IL 120958, ¶ 35, 91 N.E.3d 876. "It is not the role of the reviewing court to retry the defendant." Id. Instead, it is the trier of fact's responsibility "to resolve conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from the facts." Id. We 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." Id.¶ 29 Here, the State charged defendant with violating section 12-9 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (Criminal Code) (720 ILCS 5/12-9 (West 2016)), which provides, in relevant part, the following:

"(a) A person commits threatening a public official *** when:

(1) that person knowingly delivers or conveys, directly or indirectly, to a

...