Case Law People v. Purta

People v. Purta

Document Cited Authorities (6) Cited in Related

Appeal from the Circuit Court of McHenry County. No. 20-CF-864, Honorable Michael E. Coppedge, Judge, Presiding.

Jed Stone, of Stone & Associates, Ltd., of Waukegan, for appellant.

Patrick D. Kenneally, State’s Attorney, of Woodstock (Patrick Delfino, Edward R. Psenicka, and John G. Barrett, 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 Following a bench trial in the circuit court of McHenry County, defendant, Casey F. Purta, was convicted of disorderly conduct for knowingly making a false complaint to a public safety agency. 720 ILCS 5/26-1 (a)(6) (West 2020). Defendant argues on appeal that the State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We reverse.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 At trial, William Worley testified that he was employed by Mattress Firm as a district manager. Defendant was employed at a Mattress Firm location in McHenry, within Worley’s district. On June 1, 2020, Worley spoke with his staff, including defendant, about civil unrest occurring throughout the nation.1 He told his staff members to contact him if they felt uneasy, and then a decision would be made whether to close a Mattress Firm location for safety reasons. Later that day, shortly before 5 p.m., Worley received a call from defendant stating that he was "frightened" because "a couple of vehicles pulled into the parking lot, parked erratically, and two or three individuals got out of the car, one with a shotgun, another with an AK-47 type assault rifle, and walked by the front of the store." (On cross-examination, Worley testified that he did not recall whether defendant said he actually saw the men emerge from the vehicles or only saw them coming from that direction.) Worley told defendant to lock the front door if it was safe to do so, seek shelter in the back storage room, and dial 911.

¶ 4 After defendant’s call, Worley called Michael Glenky, Mattress Firm’s regional vice president. Glenky decided to close all 100 Mattress Firm locations in the Chicagoland region because of "the civil unrest that had been going on during that time period and the riots and so forth that had taken place throughout the market." Glenky also called Mattress Firm’s loss prevention director, Michael Deprey. Worley testified that he was aware that Deprey contacted law enforcement authorities. The parties then stipulated that Deprey made the report.

¶ 5 After speaking with Glenky, Worley called his other nine Mattress Firm locations and told them to close for the day. Worley then called defendant again. Defendant wanted to leave, but because the armed men were still unaccounted for, Worley advised defendant to lock the door and shelter in the back. Worley told defendant to cooperate with the police and then "get out of there." Worley went to the store after things "calmed down." Defendant had already left. Defendant and Worley spoke again later. Defendant was scheduled to work on June 2, 2020, and he advised Worley that he thought he would be able to do so. Later, however, defendant texted Worley, indicating that "he didn’t realize how shaken up he was given the situation." Defendant asked for the day off. On cross-examination, Worley testified that, in his experience, defendant had been an honest employee.

¶ 6 Maria Joseph, a 911 dispatcher for the City of McHenry, testified that at approximately 5 p.m. on June 1, 2020, she received a call through a nonemergency number. The caller reported "two suspicious males, possibly armed, with vests approaching a mattress store." The caller, whose name Joseph did not recall, identified himself as the store’s manager. However, he said he was not on the premises. Rather, he had received the information about the incident from an employee hiding in the store.

¶ 7 Craig Hampton testified that, in the mid to late afternoon on June 1, 2020, he and some friends were sitting in lawn chairs in the parking lot of a Starbucks located about 200 yards from Mattress Firm. During the half to one hour that he was at Starbucks, Hampton did not see an individual holding a firearm or an object that could be mistaken for a firearm. Lia McCoo testified that on June 1, 2020, she and her friend Karen Dulski met at the same Starbucks at about 4 to 4:30 p.m. and drank their beverages in McCoo’s vehicle. The vehicle was facing away from Mattress Firm, but McCoo could see Mattress Firm in her rearview mirror. At no time did she see anyone walk by carrying a firearm or an object that could be mistaken for a firearm. Although Dulski testified that she was mostly facing forward and not looking at Mattress Firm, she saw no civilians carrying assault rifles, shotguns, or anything one could mistake for such weapons.

¶ 8 McHenry police officer Christina Noyes testified that she was dispatched to Mattress Firm to respond to a report of two suspects wearing camouflage and bulletproof vests and carrying assault rifles. Noyes and her partner, Officer Popp, confronted defendant, who was then seated in his white Toyota Prius. (For reasons that need not be detailed here, Noyes had been advised that the armed suspects might have arrived in that vehicle.) Noyes did not recall whether she or Popp had their guns drawn when they first approached defendant. After determining that defendant was an employee of Mattress Firm—not one of the suspected armed men—Noyes and Popp, along with several other officers, searched the vicinity, including a nearby wooded area, but did not find any armed men. They then released defendant from the scene, but later called and asked him if he would be willing to return and answer questions. Defendant agreed.

¶ 9 Noyes subsequently tried to get in touch with defendant by leaving voicemail messages for him, but he never returned her calls. A few days after the incident, she went to Mattress Firm. Defendant was there but did not greet Noyes in any way and did not seem pleased that she was there. Noyes asked defendant if he would voluntarily come to the police department to speak with her. Defendant responded that he was unable to do so because he was working. She asked if defendant would be available the following day. He said he had plans and would not be in the area. Noyes asked if defendant wanted to speak with her. He responded that he had nothing more to tell her. Following Noyes’s testimony, the State rested.

¶ 10 Defendant called two witnesses who testified that he had a reputation for honesty. Defendant also testified on his own behalf that on June 1, 2020, at around 2:30 p.m., he was part of a Microsoft Teams chat meeting where the participants discussed the current social unrest and protests. The discussion participants were advised to contact their district manager if they saw "anything regarding" the unrest or protests. Shortly before 5 p.m., defendant was sitting at his desk when he saw two men walk past the store. He got a clear view of one of the men. That man was wealing a black vest over a camouflage T-shirt and was carrying a weapon. Later, defendant testified that both men "were holding what [he] thought were assault rifles." According to defendant, the store faced west, and the men were walking north. Defendant testified that, after seeing the men, he walked to the front of the store and looked around. He stepped outside but did not see the two men. Defendant did see two vehicles parked "askew" that he had not seen before he saw the men. Defendant assumed that the men had arrived in the vehicles. (In fact, the record reveals that the vehicles belonged to McCoo and Dulski.) Defendant called Worley and told him what he had seen. Worley told him to "lock up the store and to call the police and to stay safe until the police had arrived." Worley further told defendant that he could leave when the police arrived.

¶ 11 After the call ended, defendant started closing procedures. He cleaned up the store and gathered the trash. Then he looked for the McHenry Police Department’s nonemergency number. Defendant explained that he did not believe the situation was an emergency. While defendant was looking for the nonemergency number, Worley called back. While speaking with Worley, defendant took the trash out. At that point, he saw some squad cars in the area. Defendant told Worley that the police had been called, but he did not tell Worley that he (defendant) had called the police. After that call ended, defendant locked the back door and walked to his car. When he got in his car, squad cars and police officers immediately surrounded him with their guns drawn. Defendant told Officer Popp that he was the one who had reported the incident. Officer Popp then "dismissed" defendant, and defendant started driving home. Before he arrived, he received a phone call from Noyes. She asked him to return to the scene and talk to her. Defendant returned to the scene and spoke with Noyes again. Defendant testified that he never called the police. He did not think there was an emergency or a crime was being committed.

¶ 12 The trial court found defendant guilty of disorderly conduct based on his call to Worley, in which he reported the presence of armed men outside Mattress Firm. The court found, inter alia:

"Certainly anytime someone reports seeing two men with weapons in bulletproof vests in a *** retail shopping area at 5 p.m. ***, there could be an emergency response. It would seem axiomatic that someone reporting this information would be consciously aware that anemergency response is practically certain to result."

¶ 13 After denying defendant’s posttrial motion, the court sentenced defendant to an 18-month term of conditional discharge. This appeal followed.

¶ 14 II. ANALYSIS

[1–4] ¶ 15 Defendant...

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex