People v. Shelly

230 N.E.3d 255

2024 IL App (3d) 220432

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

v.Steven A. SHELLY, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal No. 3-22-0432

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Filed January 10, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit, La Salle County, Illinois, Circuit No. 21-CF-42, Honorable Howard C. Ryan Jr., Judge, Presiding.

Anthony, R., Burch, of Burch & Associates, of Chicago, for appellant.

Joseph Navarro, State’s Attorney, of Ottawa (Patrick Delfino, Thomas D. Arado, and Nicholas A. Atwood, of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

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

¶ 1 The defendant, Steven A. Shelly, appeals his convictions for aggravated discharge of a firearm, reckless discharge of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a firearm without a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card, arguing (1) the State needed to show that he was aware his FOID card was revoked and (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aggravated discharge of a firearm and reckless discharge of a firearm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The defendant was charged with two counts of aggravated discharge of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/24-1.2(a)(2) (West 2020)) and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm without a FOID card (430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1) (West 2020)) based on an incident that occurred on February 5, 2021. The case proceeded to a jury trial on July 26, 2022.

¶ 4 The evidence at trial established that the defendant was employed by Ezariah Haydon for "about a year or so" as a contractor. The defendant was initially "a great worker," but after approximately six months the defendant began showing up late and "not necessarily in the right frame of mind to work for the day," and Haydon had to terminate his employment. After the defendant’s employment was terminated, Haydon still owed him for between 10 and 14 hours of work. Haydon and the defendant communicated several times regarding the money via text messages and phone calls.

¶ 5 On February 3, 2021, the defendant text messaged Haydon to ask if they could meet up so he could collect the money. Haydon responded that he tried calling the defendant, then offered to send a check. The defendant then provided his address to Haydon.

¶ 6 On February 5, 2021, at 7:45 p.m., Haydon received a text message from the defendant stating that Haydon owed him for 17 hours of work. At that time, Haydon was at a bar with his friend, Chad Sibert. Haydon testified that the defendant then called him from an unrecognized number at approximately 8 or 8:15 p.m. The defendant sounded "disgruntled" and again demanded the money he was owed. During this phone call, the defendant stated that Haydon "had to pay him; otherwise, he was going to come to [Haydon’s] house and take the money from [him]." Haydon told the defendant he would bring him the money because he did not want any more problems. On cross-examination, Haydon admitted that he did not provide records of this phone call to the police.

¶ 7 Together, Haydon and Sibert drove to the defendant’s house. Haydon generally carried a firearm in a hip holster, but Haydon testified that he had unloaded it and stored it in the center console of his truck prior to entering the bar, and he was not carrying it when he and' Sibert arrived at the defendant’s home. When they pulled into the driveway, they encountered the defendant’s brother, and Haydon asked where the defendant was so he could pay him.

¶ 8 The defendant exited the house carrying a shotgun and "loudly screaming *** and pointing." The defendant approached Haydon and Sibert and got "right into [their] face[s]." Haydon pushed the barrel of the shotgun away from his face; then he and Sibert wrestled the shotgun away from the defendant.: Sibert took the shot gun and handed it to the defendant’s girlfriend, telling her to put it away. At that time, Haydon and the defendant were "rolling around on the ground in a scuffle." Sibert separated Haydon and the defendant by pulling Haydon away., The defendant then pulled a handgun from somewhere on his body and pointed it at them.

¶ 9 Upon seeing the gun, Haydon ran back to his truck, but Sibert stayed be tween Haydon and the defendant. The defendant began shooting at Haydon and Sibert. Over the course of one minute, the defendant intermittently fired four shots, one of which hit the windshield of Haydon’s truck as he was entering it; spraying him with broken glass. Sibert felt one shot as it went past him, and another shot was fired as Sibert pushed the defendant’s hand away. During this time, Sibert kept his hands out, telling the defendant to stop, and the defendant was screaming and yelling. Haydon called to Sibert to get in the truck so they could leave. Eventually, the defendant began to walk away, Sibert entered the truck, and he and Haydon began to drive away. As they were driving away, Haydon and Sibert both heard more gunshots.

¶ 10 Jody Macak testified that she and the defendant were in a relationship on February 5, 2021. Macak recalled the defendant expressing a desire to get paid by Haydon prior to the incident. On that date, she returned home from work at approximately 7:30 p.m. The defendant and his brother were in the metal pole barn next to the house, and she began preparing dinner. At some point, the defendant entered the house briefly and left carrying a shotgun. The defendant seemed to be "in a rage," and Macak followed him outside, asking him what was going on.

¶ 11 When the defendant saw- Haydon and Sibert, he walked toward them holding the shotgun and yelled that they needed to leave his property. A fight ensued, during which Sibert disarmed the defendant and then handed the shotgun to Macak. Macak and the defendant’s brother fought over the shotgun, and he took it away from her. Macak walked quickly toward the defendant to try to break up the altercation. As Haydon and Sibert began to drive off, the defendant walked back onto the porch. Macak told the defendant he needed to calm down and attempted, unsuccessfully, to "de-escalate" the situation. While Haydon and Sibert were leaving, the defendant fired a handgun.

¶ 12 Several security cameras located on the defendant’s property captured significant portions of the altercation. The videos were played for the jury. The parties also stipulated to the following additional evidence discovered upon searching the defendant’s home: (1) three spent .380-caliber shell casings found in front of the metal pole barn and a fourth casing found in front of the residence in the driveway, (2) a fired bullet located in the driveway near the three shell casings, (3) a box containing .380-caliber ammunition located in the house, and (4) a "pink receipt" located in the house showing the transfer of ownership of a .380-caliber semiautomatic handgun to the defendant. No firearms were located during the search.

¶ 13 The State additionally admitted, without objection, a certified abstract issued by the Illinois State Police showing that the defendant’s FOID card was revoked on December 14, 2020. After the State rested, the defendant moved for a directed finding, arguing that the State had failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because it had not proved that he was aware his FOID card was revoked and because he had raised the affirmative defense of self-defense. The circuit court denied the motion.

¶ 14 The State then filed a motion in limine requesting that the defendant be barred from introducing "any evidence of [his] mistaken belief that his [FOID] Card was valid." At a hearing on the motion, the State argued that it was not required to prove the defendant knew his FOID card was revoked. The court granted the State’s motion over the defendant’s objection.

¶ 16 The defendant testified that he worked for Haydon in 2020 and 2021. After his employment was terminated, the defendant believed he was still owed between $150 and $200. On February 5, 2021, the defendant exchanged text messages with Haydon, but he denied ever making a phone call to Haydon or threatening to go to Haydon's house. When Haydon arrived at the defendant’s house with Sibert, it was unexpected.

¶ 16 That evening, the defendant and his brother were working in the metal pole barn. The defendant’s brother suggested shooting guns in the backyard, and the defendant retrieved his unloaded shotgun from the house. As he exited the house, the defendant saw Haydon and Sibert arriving, so he walked down the porch and told them that he "didn’t know why they were there and they needed to leave." Haydon and Sibert were "towering over [him]" and "kind of being aggressive." The defendant tried to walk away when Haydon grabbed him and Sibert took the shotgun. Haydon pulled the defendant’s jacket up over his head, which prevented the defendant from moving his arms. The defendant never pointed the shotgun at Haydon or Sibert and never tried to punch Haydon.

¶ 17 After standing up, the defendant pulled out a .380-caliber semiautomatic pistol, pointed it at Haydon and Sibert, and told them again that they needed to leave his house. The defendant began to walk away, and Haydon said, "Fuck you, I have a gun, as well" The defendant was aware that Haydon carried a weapon, and he stored it either in the door of his track or the center console of his van. When Haydon moved toward his truck, the defendant was afraid that Haydon would shoot him, and he fired a shot into his own car because he "wasn’t trying to hit anybody ***. [He] just wanted them to leave." The defendant fired a second shot when he saw Haydon pull his pistol from the door of his truck. Afterward, he fired two more shots into the ground because he saw Haydon moving behind the truck.

¶ 18 The defendant denied firing a fifth shot as Haydon and Sibert were driving away. The defendant did not call the police afterward because he did not...