People v. Williams

2020 IL App (3d) 170848

184 N.E.3d 1079

452 Ill.Dec. 98

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

v.Travis J. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal No. 3-17-0848

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Opinion filed December 31, 2020

Andrew S. Gable, of Chicago, for appellant.

Matthew Schutte, State's Attorney, of Cambridge (Patrick Delfino, Thomas D. Arado, and Mark A. Austill, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE O'BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The defendant, Travis J. Williams, appealed his convictions of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and criminal sexual assault.

¶ 2 FACTS

¶ 3 The defendant, Travis Williams, was charged on November 30, 2016, with 10 counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child ( 720 ILCS 5/12-14.1(a)(1) (West 2004)) and five counts of criminal sexual assault (id. § 12-13(a)(3)) in case No. 16-CF-411, the victim being his biological daughter, K.W. The allegations with respect to K.W. occurred between January 1, 2004, and January 30, 2005. Prior to trial, the State indicated that it would only proceed to trial on two of each count and dismiss the remaining counts. The defendant was also charged with five counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, five counts of criminal sexual assault, and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (id. § 12-16(b)) in case No. 16-CF-412, the victim being his stepdaughter, H.S. The allegations with respect to H.S. occurred between January 1, 2007, and March 30, 2009. The State proceeded to trial in case No. 16-CF-412 on one count of predatory criminal sexual assault and one count of criminal sexual assault and dismissed the remaining counts.

¶ 4 Prior to trial, the State filed a motion to admit evidence of other sex crimes pursuant to section 115-7.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) ( 725 ILCS 5/115-7.3 (West 2016) ). The State sought to introduce the testimony of K.W. at H.S.'s trial, and vice versa , along with allegations by two other minors to prove the defendant's intent and absence of mistake, as well as to show the defendant's propensity to commit sex offenses. After the trial court granted the motion, defense counsel agreed to the joinder of the two cases. The State also filed a motion in limine pursuant to section 115-7 of the Code ( 725 ILCS 5/115-7 (West 2016) ) to prevent the defendant from introducing evidence of the victims' prior sexual conduct. The defense indicated that it would not be eliciting any such testimony, so the trial court indicated on the record that the matter was resolved.

¶ 5 The State presented three witnesses at the combined trial: K.W., H.S., and Johanna Hager, an expert witness in forensic interviewing and clinical psychology. K.W. testified that she was born on January 31, 1992, and the defendant was her father. K.W. testified that in June 2016 she had spent the day with the defendant's youngest daughter, O.A., and K.W. felt compelled to warn O.A.'s mother, Patti A., that the defendant had touched K.W. when she was younger. K.W. defined her relationship with the defendant as "good" and that he has "been like [her] best friend." She went on to testify that when she was in sixth grade, the 2003-04 school year, K.W. and her younger sister, A.R., had a bedroom at the defendant's home but, after the defendant's girlfriend moved out, K.W. and A.R. began sleeping in the defendant's bedroom on a mattress on the floor. The defendant started having K.W. remove her shirt to give her backrubs and then later started to rub her front, too. K.W. could not recall if A.R. was ever awake or said anything at the time. K.W. recalled, while she was still in sixth grade, that the defendant took her hand and rubbed it across his stomach, purposely having her touch his penis. K.W. faked that she was sleeping. The defendant then started touching K.W. in the vaginal area and then had sexual relations with her. K.W. and the defendant did not talk about it at the time, but about a month later they did discuss it, and the defendant told K.W. that it was his way of teaching K.W. and showing love. K.W. testified that sex with the defendant happened routinely, until K.W. texted the defendant when she was 17 or 18 years old and said she did not want to do it anymore. K.W. testified that there were times when she thought her period was late and she would tell the defendant "[b]ecause [she] wasn't having sex with anyone else." K.W. remembered punching herself in the stomach, thinking that it would somehow make her not pregnant. K.W. also testified that the defendant would have her engage in oral sex.

¶ 6 At some point in 2009 or before, K.W. testified that she talked about the abuse with A.R. According to K.W., A.R. said something happened to A.W., but A.W. would not talk about it. In 2009, A.R. made allegations against the defendant, and the police and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) investigated. K.W. was interviewed as part of the investigation and reported that nothing happened with the defendant. K.W. testified that she did so at the time because she felt that A.R. should not have reported the abuse against K.W. and because K.W. felt a need to protect the defendant.

¶ 7 H.S. testified that she was born on August 4, 1996, and the defendant was her former stepfather. The defendant was married to H.S.'s mother from about H.S.'s sixth-grade year to her sophomore year in high school, and H.S. lived in the home with the defendant during that time. H.S. was contacted by the police in June or July 2016, after receiving a call from her mother, Patti, asking if H.S. had ever been touched by the defendant. H.S. responded that she had. H.S. testified that she had lived with the defendant for about a year before the defendant began giving her backrubs and requesting backrubs. H.S. was uncomfortable when the defendant asked her to use lotion while giving the defendant a backrub. At first, it was just backrubs, but then the defendant made H.S. touch his penis and help him masturbate. The defendant then started touching H.S.'s vagina with his hand. When the DCFS investigator talked to H.S. in 2009, H.S. denied any touching by the defendant. H.S. testified that she denied the abuse in 2009 because the defendant had told H.S. that, if she told, the defendant would get in trouble and H.S.'s mother would be unhappy and lonely.

¶ 8 Johanna Hager testified that she was a forensic interviewer at the Braveheart Children's Advocacy Center. Hager testified that she did not interview K.W. or H.S. She testified generally that delayed disclosure of sexual abuse was common. Concern for a younger sibling is an external event that can cause a victim to speak up. And it was not uncommon for children to love their abuser.

¶ 9 During closing arguments, the State argued that the defendant was guilty but informed the jury that it was its job to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Both the State and defense counsel informed the jury that the State had the burden of proof and that the burden was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense counsel argued that K.W.'s and H.S.'s testimony was uncorroborated and there was no physical evidence. To explain what uncorroborated meant, defense counsel argued that the State could have called A.R. to testify to corroborate K.W.'s testimony. Defense counsel also questioned why the State did not call any witnesses from the 2009 investigation. The State also did not put K.W.'s wife on the stand, even though K.W. testified that she had told her wife about the abuse. Defense counsel suggested that K.W. and H.S. fabricated their stories so that Patti would gain an advantage in her divorce from the defendant with respect to the custody of O.A. Defense counsel also suggested that K.W. was angry at the defendant for his disapproval of her lifestyle choices.

¶ 10 In rebuttal to defense counsel's statements regarding A.R., the State said: "[Defense counsel] makes a point of saying, well, why didn't they call [A.R.] as a witness? Well, first of all, the defense has subpoena powers just like the government." Defense counsel objected, arguing that he had no burden of proof and did not have to call any witnesses. The trial court overruled the objection; it found that the comment had nothing to do with shifting the burden of proof but was rather rebutting the suggestion that the State failed to do something to make the case clearer. The State then clarified to the jury that, while the defendant had subpoena powers, he had no burden of proof in the case. The State went on to argue that it could not call A.R. to testify as to what K.W. told A.R. because it would be hearsay. The State defined hearsay as "something that's said outside of court." The State went on to say that "It's a rule we can't bring in hearsay, so for the defense to suggest to you that I should call [A.R.] to talk about what [K.W.] told her, he knows I can't do that." The State also argued that whatever K.W. told her wife was hearsay, so the State could not bring the wife in to testify about what K.W. said. The State argued that defense counsel knew that the State could not have K.W.'s wife testify for that reason. Defense counsel did not object to the State's definition of hearsay or its related argument explaining why the State could not call A.R. or K.W.'s wife to testify. The jury was given instructions, including instructions regarding credibility, but not given an instruction defining hearsay or its exceptions. The jury found the defendant guilty of all six charges, three counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and three counts of criminal sexual assault.

¶ 11 The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, contending that there was insufficient evidence of his guilt and that it was error to allow the State to argue in rebuttal that the defendant could have called witnesses to testify. The trial court denied the...