People v. Peoples

2019 IL App (5th) 170463-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. DOMINIQUE D. PEOPLES, Respondent-Appellant.

NO. 5-17-0463

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

August 14, 2019

NOTICE

Decision filed 08/14/19. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Peti ion for Rehearing or the disposition of the same.

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 Jefferson County.

No. 15-CM-404

Honorable Barry L. Vaughan, Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE CHAPMAN delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Welch and Moore concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Where the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent, Dominique D. Peoples, had a criminal propensity to commit sex offenses, the trial court's finding that he is a sexually dangerous person is affirmed. Where the respondent did not allege that one or both court-appointed evaluators were biased or prejudiced, the trial court's order denying the respondent's motion in limine seeking to appoint a third evaluator or review the testimony of three evaluators from a 2014 commitment hearing is affirmed.

¶ 2 The respondent appeals from the trial court's order finding that he is a sexually dangerous person as defined in the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (725 ILCS 205/1.01 et seq. (West 2016)). He argues that the State failed to prove that he has criminal propensities to commit sex offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. He also alleges that the trial court erred in denying his request to use other experts' evaluations in addition to the two appointed by the court. For the reasons explained in this order, we affirm.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 This case originated with a misdemeanor charge filed in Jefferson County on October 1, 2015. The State charged the respondent with disorderly conduct for a lewd and unlawful purpose. The Attorney General entered its appearance in this case on December 4, 2015, and filed a petition to proceed under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (SDPA). A bench trial was held on June 27 and 28, 2017.

¶ 5 Meagan Carnine testified that in September 2015 she lived in a Mt. Vernon home with her twin children—a boy and a girl who were then six years old. She was then employed by the Marion County State's Attorney's Office as an assistant state's attorney.

¶ 6 For approximately two weeks prior to September 24, 2015, upon arriving home, Carnine would notice a foul odor in her bedroom that would dissipate over time. On September 24, 2015, she arrived home and found a pair of her shoes in a "posed" position on the path from the carport to the back door. The doormat on the back porch was askew. She lifted the doormat to check on the key that she had left for carpet installers. While the key was there, the key had been moved from its original location. The back door was locked, but the front door, which was always locked, was open. Carnine became frightened; called a friend who came over; and the two walked through her home checking each room to ensure all windows were closed and locked, and checking all closets. Carnine's friend went down to check the finished basement. He came backupstairs and asked Carnine if she had left a light on in the basement. She had not left the light on.

¶ 7 The next day, Carnine called the Mt. Vernon Police Department to report what had been happening at her home. She believed that someone had been using her back door to gain access to her home. She removed the house key from under the doormat and changed the locks. Detective Kevin Jackson was sent to Carnine's home to install a motion-detector camera at the back of her home. The camera was installed midday on September 25, 2015.

¶ 8 On September 28, 2015, Carnine came home from work with her twins at about 6:30 p.m. The Carnine family went through its typical evening routine with the twins in bed at 8 p.m. Carnine then changed into pajamas, got into her own bed, and began watching television at about 8:30 p.m. While watching television, someone rang her doorbell. She ignored it. Then the doorbell began continuously ringing. Carnine got out of bed and took her cell phone with her. She looked out the window in the door and saw the respondent, whom she recognized from her former employment history as a Jefferson County assistant state's attorney. Through the closed door, Carnine repeatedly told the respondent to leave her property. The respondent continued to ask Carnine to let him into her home, stating that he needed to use the telephone. Carnine then called 911. Upon hearing the dispatcher pick up on Carnine's call, the respondent ran off. Mount Vernon Police Department officers quickly arrived at her home. Two officers searched the area and ultimately located the respondent close to Carnine's home.

¶ 9 The next day, Carnine met with Officer Jackson and another officer to review surveillance video captured by the motion sensor camera from the previous night. The series of videos depicted a person standing on the porch of Carnine's back door and looking into various windows of her home. The video was recorded from 7:30 p.m. to 8:15 p.m. The time of the last video approximately corresponded to the time when the respondent began ringing her front doorbell. Carnine identified the respondent as the person in the videos. This respondent was depicted masturbating outside of her daughter's bedroom window and trying to take photos of Carnine's bedroom with a cell phone.

¶ 10 Officer Jackson testified to his involvement in setting up the video camera at Carnine's home; his identification of the respondent in the videos captured by that camera on September 28, 2015; and his interview of the respondent. He explained how the videos are triggered by motion, the duration of each video, and how they can be downloaded to a computer. Officer Jackson was familiar with the respondent from his past involvement with the Mt. Vernon Police Department. He and a Mt. Vernon detective interviewed the respondent on September 29, 2015. Initially, the respondent requested an attorney, but then asked to speak with the officers. He was provided and waived his Miranda warnings. The interview was recorded.

¶ 11 In the respondent's interview, he acknowledged that he was outside Carnine's home on September 28, 2015. Initially, he would not say why he was at Carnine's home, but later stated that he was there to locate something he could steal. He also admitted that he found Carnine to be attractive. When asked whether he was masturbating on the videoclips the officers showed him, the respondent did not deny doing so but insinuated that they would have a difficult time in proving that. The respondent acknowledged that he looked through Carnine's windows and doors. He denied that he intended to sexually assault Carnine that evening.

¶ 12 Respondent was evaluated by two mental health professionals. Dr. Angeline Stanislaus is a forensic psychiatrist from St. Louis and is a licensed sex offender evaluator. She is board certified in general psychiatry and forensic psychiatry. Dr. David Suire is a licensed clinical psychologist employed by the Illinois Department of Human Services and is also a licensed sex offender evaluator. Dr. Stanislaus and Dr. Suire were both accepted as expert witnesses in the field of sex offender evaluations. Both evaluators conducted their evaluations pursuant to the Illinois SDPA. In order to be found to be sexually dangerous, it must be shown that the person has a mental disorder that has existed for at least one year; that the mental disorder is coupled with criminal propensities that result in the commission of sex offenses; and that the person has demonstrated those criminal propensities by sexual assaults or acts of sexual molestation of children. 725 ILCS 205/1.01 (West 2016). Both evaluators interviewed the respondent; reviewed police reports, court records, and prior evaluations, provided by the Attorney General's office; administered the STATIC-99 Revised test—an accepted tool to evaluate the probability of sex offenders committing future acts of sexual violence; gave opinions and diagnoses on what mental disorders the respondent has; and prepared evaluative reports. Dr. Suire also administered an additional test—the STATIC-2002 Revised test. In addition to the other documents provided by the AG's office, Dr. Stanislaus also reviewed all sexoffender treatment records and mental health treatment records obtained from the Illinois Department of Corrections.

¶ 13 Dr. Stanislaus testified that a person's criminal history is important as a factor to determine if that person is sexually dangerous. The respondent had a series of arrests when he was 15 years old for retail theft, disorderly conduct, violation of supervision, and delivery of cannabis. Any juvenile offenses are significant because the risk of future sexual offenses is increased. Furthermore, the fact that the respondent continued to offend while under supervision is another behavior related to future risk of sexual offenses.

¶ 14 Dr. Stanislaus also felt that some of the respondent's sexual behaviors while a juvenile were "significant." At some point during his minority, the respondent was placed in the Franklin County Detention Center. While housed at the detention center, the respondent had a pattern of calling over female staff members, exposing his genitalia, and masturbating in front of them. In addition, the respondent was placed in a foster home at the age of 15. His foster mother found that he had been masturbating and had left his ejaculate on a bed and on a lamp. Foster care placement was thereafter discontinued. Dr. Stanislaus characterized these behaviors as deviant and hypersexual.

¶ 15 Dr. Stanislaus also testified about the various crimes with which the respondent had been charged as an adult. In 2008, the respondent was...