People v. Johnson

235 N.E.3d 95

2023 IL App (2d) 210110

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

v.Jerris R. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2-21-0110

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

Filed July 7, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County. No. 20-CF-134, Honorable Donald M. Tegeler Jr., Judge, Presiding.

James E. Chadd, Thomas A. Lilien, and Fletcher P. Hamill, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.

Jamie L. Mosser, State’s Attorney, of St. Charles (Patrick Delfino, Edward R. Psenicka, and Max C. Boose, of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

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

¶ 1 Defendant, Jerris R. Johnson, appeals his conviction of domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1) (West 2018)), contending that the trial court (1) erred in denying his motion to dismiss under the section 103-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (commonly known as the Speedy Trial Act (Act)) (725 ILCS 5/103-5 (West 2018)) and (2) abused its discretion by barring him from introducing evidence of the victim’s mental health as it related to her credibility. Because the court neither denied defendant his statutory speedy-trial right nor improperly limited defendant in presenting evidence of the victim’s mental health, we affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The State indicted defendant on two counts of aggravated domestic battery based on strangulation (720 ILCS 5/12-3.3(a-5) (West 2018)) (counts I and II), one count of robbery (cell phone) (720 ILCS 5/18-l(a) (West 2018)) (count III), two counts of aggravated battery on a public way (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(c) (West 2018)) (counts IV and V), two counts of domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1), (2) (West 2018)) (counts VI and VII), and one count of theft (cell phone) (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(1) (West 2018)) (count VIII). Defendant opted for a jury trial.

¶ 4 Before trial, defendant filed a demand under the Act (725 ILCS 5/103-5 (West 2018)). When the trial did not commence within the time prescribed by the Act, defendant moved for dismissal. Relying on the supreme court’s emergency orders suspending the time provisions in the Act because of COVID-19 (see Ill. S. Ct., M.R. 30370 (eff. Apr. 7, 2020); Ill. S. Ct., M.R. 30370 (eff. Apr. 3, 2020); Ill. S. Ct., M.R. 30370 (eff. Mar. 20, 2020)), the trial court denied the motion to dismiss.

¶ 5 Also, before trial, defendant filed a motion in limine seeking, among other things, leave to cross-examine the victim regarding her mental health at the time she reported the incident because that evidence would be relevant to the credibility of her accusation. At the hearing on defen- dant’s motion, defense counsel stated that she had received medical records from the State showing that the victim had gone to the hospital after the incident and reported that she was taking "an antipsychotic medication, generic Zyprexa, and lithium bicarbonate used to treat bipolar disorder." According to counsel, the victim also reported suffering from anxiety and depression. Counsel further told the court that one of the responding police officers told an emergency medical technician that the victim was a "little 10-96," meaning that she had a mental-health issue. Counsel suggested that the officer’s comment "obviously len[t] credence to the idea that [the victim’s] mental health *** affect[ed] her perception of what had happened and her reliability for statements." Accordingly, counsel requested leave to cross-examine the responding police officer about the victim’s behavior at the scene and to cross-examine the victim about her "state of mind" and the medications she was prescribed at the time she reported the incident. Finally, counsel asked to present evidence that the victim "ha[d] a reputation in the community for making stuff up."

¶ 6 In deciding the motion in limine, the trial court said it would allow defense counsel to question the responding officer about the victim’s behavior at the scene but would not allow the officer to speculate as to the victim’s mental health. The court further ruled that it would not permit counsel to inquire into the medications the victim was prescribed at the time she reported the incident, "unless somehow it c[ame] up that she[ ] [was] supposed to be on medication and she was not taking medication and that affected her." Nor would the court permit counsel to inquire about the victim’s mental health at the time she reported the incident, because none of the mental disorders counsel mentioned would impact the victim’s ability to perceive reality. Finally, the court found it premature to rule on defendant’s request to introduce evidence that the victim had a reputation for untruthfulness. Such evidence "could possibly come in," but the court would "see what happen[ed] at the trial in that respect." The court instructed defense counsel that she should approach the bench and obtain a ruling before she sought to introduce reputation evidence.

¶ 7 The court summarized its ruling on the motion in limine:

"So you get into the officer, his interactions with her and whether or not, you know, his questions and the answers, what they were, you know, how she was behaving emotionally and things. He can’t obviously guess as to any mental[-]health things. You cannot get into the prescriptions or any of her mental health at this point. As I said, I’ll wait to see if the reputation testimony comes in if it’s even appropriate at that point."

¶ 8 Defendant filed a second motion in Imine to reconsider the trial court’s ruling on his initial motion in limine. Defendant asserted that "[n]ew information ha[d] come to light that ma[de] [the victim’s] mental health unequivocally a central question in th[e] case." Specifically, defendant pointed to two police reports indicating that the victim had fabricated claims of domestic battery. Thus, according to defendant, the reports "demonstrate[d] recent, active delusional and persecutory thinking." Defendant also claimed that the reports generally alluded to defendant's prior paranoid and delusional behavior and "known history" of fabricating incidents. Based on these reports, defendant asked the court to reconsider its ruling barring defendant from cross-examining the victim about her mental health. Defendant also asked the court to permit police officers to testify that the victim had a reputation for untruthfulness based on her mental-health issues.

¶ 9 At the hearing on the second motion in limine, defense counsel reiterated her request to cross-examine the victim about her mental health and how it affected her ability to perceive reality. Counsel also requested leave to call police officers to opine that the victim was "untruthful due to her delusional behavior and/or that she ha[d] a reputation in the community for untruthfulness stemming from her delusional mental[-]health disorder."

¶ 10 In ruling on the motion in limine, the trial court stated that it would allow defense counsel to "get into whether or not [the victim was] on medication." When defense counsel responded that the court had previously ruled that she could not so inquire, the court replied that it would indeed let counsel ask the victim whether "she [was] on medication and whether she was not." The court added that, if the victim answered that "she [was] on medication," then counsel would have to "live with the answer." The court further allowed counsel to ask the victim whether "she’s ever been diagnosed with a mental illness that would affect her ability to perceive the facts as they were occurring." If the victim answered no, counsel would have to "live with her answer unless [counsel had] someone to testify otherwise."

¶ 11 The court also denied defendant’s request to call police officers to testify to whether the victim was delusional. When counsel asked if she could cross-examine the victim "about *** some of her prior delusions," the court answered,

"It depends on what her answer is. Ask her if she’s ever been diagnosed with a delusional—you know, whether or not there has ever been a diagnosis of delusions. If she says no, you may be stuck. If she says yes, I will see how far I let you go."

The court also reminded defense counsel that only two weeks remained until trial and that the court was not inclined to continue the trial to allow counsel to locate doctors to testify about the victim’s mental health. Counsel responded that she did not need to locate any doctors, because she was already aware of doctors who treated the victim and who knew what medications she was prescribed at the time she reported the incident. When the court asked if these doctors had been identified as witnesses, counsel responded that they were on her witness list. The court commented, "Well, let’s see if they show up."

¶ 12 The following facts were developed at defendant’s jury trial. The victim testified that, on January 22, 2020, at around 1 a.m., she and defendant were sitting in her car in a parking lot in Elgin. They began to argue, and defendant started punching her in the face with a closed fist. According to the victim, defendant also bit her hand and squeezed her neck until she lost consciousness. The victim escaped to a Walgreens, where someone called 911. Defendant fled in another direction.

¶ 13 According to the victim, her cell phone was in the car. However, she could not locate it after the incident.

¶ 14 The victim was taken to a hospital. Photographs of her injuries showed blood and bruises on her face and neck, bite marks on her arm and leg, and blood on her hand.

¶ 15 The victim identified two recordings of telephone calls defendant made to her from jail. In those calls, defendant encouraged the victim not to appear at his trial.

¶ 16 The victim also testified about two prior incidents in which she and defendant argued and he physically abused her. On the first occasion, defendant punched her several times, knocking a...