People v. Hunter

233 N.E.3d 292

2023 IL App (4th) 210595

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Robert M. HUNTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-21-0595

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Filed January 27, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Logan County, No. 18CF238, Honorable. William G. Workman, Judge Presiding.

James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Christopher L. Gehrke, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Bradley M. Hauge, State’s Attorney, of Lincoln (Patrick Delflno, David J. Robinson, and Timothy J. Londrigan, of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a jury trial, defendant, Robert M. Hunter, was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment followed by two years’ mandatory supervised release (MSR). Defendant now appeals, complaining about the admission of the other crimes evidence at his trial, as well as the absence of a particular jury instruction. In addition, defendant complains about a statutorily mandated condition of his MSR prohibiting him from accessing social networking websites while on MSR. For the reasons that follow, we affirm defendant’s conviction but vacate the complained-of MSR condition.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 A. Charges

¶ 4 In December 2018, the State charged defendant in Logan County case Nos. 18-CF-238 and 18-CF-239 with multiple criminal offenses based upon his alleged conduct with three different minors. The charges in case No. 18-CF-238 were based upon defendant’s alleged conduct with A.S., while the charges in case No. 18-CF-239 were based upon defendant’s alleged conduct with S.C. and J.M. As to the charges in case No. 18-CF-238, the State ultimately proceeded against defendant on one count of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1) (West 2018)) (count I) and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (id. § 11-1.60(c)(1)) (counts II and III). To support those charges, the State generally alleged, on or about November 6, 2018, that defendant, a person over the age of 17, committed various acts against A.S., a person under the age of 13, for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal. Counts I through III respectively alleged defendant touched the vagina, chest, and buttocks of A.S.

¶ 5 B. Pretrial Proceedings

¶ 6 In August 2019, the State filed motions in case Nos. 18-CF-238 and 18-CF-239, seeking to introduce certain evidence at defendant’s trials, pursuant to sections 115-7.3 and 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115-7.3, 115-10 (West 2018)). As to the motions in case No. 18-CF-238, the State sought to introduce evidence of (1) out-of-court statements, allegedly made by A.S., pursuant to section 115-10 and (2) "other sexual offenses," allegedly committed by defendant pursuant to section 115-7.3. With respect to the latter, the State specifically sought to introduce evidence "that *** defendant engage[d] in the same course of conduct that is charged herein and committed *** acts of sexual conduct against S.C. and J.M., *** in that *** defendant touched the bodies of S.C. and J.M. for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of *** defendant."

¶ 7 In February 2020, the trial court commenced a two-day combined hearing on the State’s section 115-10 and section 115-7.3 motions filed in case Nos. 18-CF-238 and 18-CF-239. On the first day of the hearing, the State presented testimony from the mother of A.S., the grandmother of S.C. and J.M., and a representative from the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) who conducted forensic interviews of A.S., S.C., and J.M. In addition, the State presented audio and video recordings of the forensic interviews of the minors. Through the evidence presented, the trial court learned about defendant’s alleged conduct with A.S., S.C., and J.M. Because the information gleaned from the evidence presented was largely consistent with the information gleaned from the evidence later presented at defendant’s trial, we need not summarize that Information here. Of note, however, the grandmother of S.C. and J.M. testified about one of the gilds making an out-of- court statement about the other girl having to lay on top of defendant.

¶ 8 In March 2020, the trial court concluded the two-day combined hearing on the State’s section 115-10 and section 115-7.3 motions filed in case Nos. 18-CF-238 and 18-CF-239. On the second day of the hearing, the parties presented argument in support of and against the State’s motions. With respect to the section 115-7.3 motions, the State stated its intent to introduce evidence from case No. 18-CF-239 in case No. 18-CF-238 and vice versa "for propensity purposes." The parties’ arguments concerning the admissibility of this evidence then focused on whether the circumstances of the alleged conduct with S.C. and J.M. were sufficiently similar to the circumstances of the alleged conduct with A.S. After hearing from the parties, the court ruled, in relevant part, "the evidence of Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse[ ] alleged in [case No. 18-CF-239] is admissible in [case No. 18-CF-238]." The court specifically found the circumstances of the alleged conduct in both cases were sufficiently similar. With respect to the section 115-10 motions, the State argued, in relevant part, that the out-of-court statements made by S.C. and J.M. in the presence of their grandmother were admissible both under section 115-10 and as excited utterances. Defendant disagreed, asserting, in part, the statements were not admissible as excited utterances because A.S. and J.M. "were not under any emotional distress" when discussing the alleged incident. After hearing from the parties, the court ruled it would "allow [the] testimony and statements to be entered." The court specifically found "[t]he time, content, and circumstances that [the out-of-court] statements were provided do show and provide sufficient safeguards of reliability to the statements that were made."

¶ 9 C. Jury Trial

¶ 10 In January 2021, the trial court conducted a jury trial in case No. 18-CF-238. The following is gleaned from the evidence presented.

¶ 11 1. The Initial Disclosure From A.S.

¶ 12 In November 2018, A.S., who at the time was 10 years old, and her family attended Jefferson Street Christian Church in Lincoln, Illinois. On Tuesdays, A.S. attended an after-school daycare program called "Kid’s Club" at First United Methodist Church in Lincoln. After Kid’s Club, A.S. would go to Jefferson Street Christian Church to participate in a program called "Praise Handmaid." Praise Handmaid started at 5 p.m. A.S. required transportation to get from Kid’s Club to Praise Handmaid.

¶ 13 Tara S., A.S.’s mother, testified she arranged for defendant to drive A.S. from Kid’s Club to Praise Handmaid on November 6, 2018. Tara S. and her family were familiar with defendant, who at the time was 46 years old, from church. Tara S. acknowledged defendant would hug A.S. and hold her hand, and A.S. would occasionally sit on his lap. Tara. S. testified she asked defendant to pick A.S. up from Kid’s Club around 4:45 p.m. on November 6. Video footage taken from the building where Kid’s Club operated was admitted into evidence. The video footage showed defendant entering the building at 3:53 p.m. and then leaving the building with A.S. at 3:57 p.m.

¶ 14 On November 13, 2018, Tara S. was informed of an accusation involving defendant and another family. Tara. S. then had a conversation with her daughter around 5:30 or 6 p.m. A.S.’s father was present during the conversation. Tara. S. testified she initially let A.S. know that she was not in trouble and that they loved her. Tara S. asked A.S. "if a man, woman, young, old, has anyone ever touched you in your girly parts or other private areas?" Tara S. explained what those terms meant in their family: "Private areas are, like, chest, behind, anything other than—girly parts are your vagina. That’s sexual organ down be- low is girly parts. The other private areas would be the chest or your butt." Tara. S. testified A.S. responded by "whisper[ing] in my ear, yes." Tara. S. then "asked her who, and [A.S.] said, Robbie Hunter." Tara S. provided the following details about the remainder of the conversation:

"I asked her if she had to do anything, and she said, No. I asked her if there was any kissing, anything like that, and she did kind of perk—like a kid caught with a cookie jar—kind of perked up and kind of body language of, yeah, that kind of happened, the embarrassed look on her face type, but she never verbalized that. But I took that as a, yes, on that[.]"

Tara. S. did not recall any other questions she asked of A.S. but asserted her questions did not "go into [the] details." When asked about A.S.’s body language and demeanor during the conversation, Tara S. testified: "Kind of hunched, kind of the head down, the embarrassed kind of look. It wasn’t upright or anything. It was more of a—and she was whispering all of her answers. She didn’t want to verbalize loudly where dad could hear."

¶ 15 After the conversation, Tara S. and A.S.’s father reassured A.S. that she was not in trouble and that they loved her. They then told her they needed to go the hospital and she could choose if they went before or after Bible study. A.S. said she need to see her "Bible study family," so they went there first. After Bible study, they went to a hospital in Springfield, Illinois, arriving around 9 p.m.

¶ 16 2. The Disclosure From AS. During the Medical Examination

¶ 17 Tara S. testified A.S. used a teddy bear, which was approximately 18 inches tall, to describe to medical staff at the hospital what happened to her. From Tara S.’s point of view, it seemed as if A.S. gave "a full sweep" of the front side of the teddy bear when giving her account. She did not make any gestures towards the...