People v. Willigman

2021 IL App (2d) 200188

192 N.E.3d 861

456 Ill.Dec. 1

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

v.Matthew WILLIGMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2-20-0188

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

Opinion filed August 31, 2021

Amanda J. Hamilton, of Konicek & Dillon, P.C., of Geneva, for appellant.

Jamie L. Mosser, State's Attorney, of St. Charles (Patrick Delfino, Edward R. Psenicka, and Diane L. Campbell, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

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

¶ 1 Matthew Willigman, a principal at an elementary school and a mandated reporter, was charged with one count of failing to report child abuse pursuant to section 4 of the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act (Reporting Act) ( 325 ILCS 5/4 (West 2016) ). Following a bench trial, Willigman was found guilty of this offense. Willigman appeals from this order. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On October 26, 2018, Willigman was charged with the offense of failure to report child abuse (id. ), a Class A misdemeanor. The complaint alleged that Willigman was the principal at O'Donnell Elementary School in Aurora and had reasonable cause to believe that one of the students, I.M., was abused by a social worker at the school but that Willigman willfully failed to report the matter to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). The complaint alleged that the failure to report occurred sometime between March 1 and April 20, 2018.

¶ 4 The State filed a pretrial motion in limine to exclude evidence that a DCFS investigation of a later report concerning I.M. and the social worker was determined to be unfounded. The State argued that the DCFS finding of unfounded did not mean that abuse did not occur, only that DCFS had no credible evidence of abuse or neglect. Further, the DCFS finding did not determine whether there were facts mandating a report to DCFS. In response, Willigman argued that the fact that the DCFS report was unfounded is relevant to whether Willigman had reasonable cause to suspect abuse. The trial court denied the motion in limine. The trial court stated that it would reconsider the issue at trial after it had time to consider case law and whether the evidence would be relevant.

¶ 5 At a bench trial, Darrell J. testified that he was I.M.’s stepfather. I.M. was 11 years old, and his mother was Jacqueline B. Darrell testified that, in 2017 and 2018, I.M. attended O'Donnell Elementary School. Willigman was the principal at the school. In March 2018, Darrell had a meeting at the school with Willigman, I.M., and Jacqueline. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss concerns that I.M. had with a social worker at the school. Darrell told Willigman that I.M. said that the social worker was pulling him out of class and that he was afraid of the social worker. There was no discussion as to why I.M. was afraid of the social worker. Willigman told everyone that I.M. would not have any further meetings with the social worker. Darrell testified that there was not another meeting with Willigman after that meeting.

¶ 6 Upon further questioning, Darrell testified that he subsequently learned that I.M. was still seeing the social worker. He also testified that there was in fact another meeting with Willigman. When asked whether the second meeting was prompted by an allegation that I.M. made against the social worker, Darrell responded affirmatively. Darrell testified that the allegation, which he told Willigman about, was that the social worker would "touch [I.M.], hug him inappropriately, and give him toys." Darrell also told Willigman that the social worker was "touching [I.M.] inappropriately." Willigman asked I.M., who was 8 years old at the time, when the alleged inappropriate contact occurred. Darrell testified that Willigman's response and mannerisms gave him the impression that Willigman did not believe the accusation. Darrell believed that the second meeting took place sometime in March or April 2018.

¶ 7 Kristen Temple testified that she had been employed by DCFS for 10 years. She investigated allegations of abuse or neglect of children. In the summer of 2018, she investigated reported abuse of I.M. On June 5, 2018, as part of that investigation, she spoke to Willigman on the phone. Willigman told her that he was never told that a school social worker was touching I.M. inappropriately. Willigman also never called the DCFS hotline to report any abuse.

¶ 8 On cross-examination, Temple testified that, prior to talking to Willigman, she had spoken on the phone with Darrell and Jacqueline. She told them that her call was based on a report involving allegations that a school social worker may have abused I.M. Darrell told her that the reason they went to speak with Willigman was due to concerns with I.M. being pulled out of class by the social worker. Darrell told her that, after that meeting, I.M. told Darrell and Jacqueline that the social worker was touching him inappropriately. Darrell told Temple that he never told Willigman or the social worker about the allegation because he did not think the school would do anything about it.

¶ 9 Temple further testified that she was present in June 2018 for an interview at the child advocacy center in Geneva. Darrell and Jacqueline were also there. They told her that they had met with Willigman once in 2017 and once in 2018. In March 2018, they met with Willigman to tell him that I.M. was uncomfortable with the social worker. After further discussion, Darrell told her that, at the March 2018 meeting, he told Willigman that the social worker was touching I.M. inappropriately. Darrell also said that he could not remember the specific words he used when speaking to Willigman. Darrell also reported telling Willigman that he "was not saying that the social worker was doing anything."

¶ 10 Temple also testified that in June 2018 she interviewed an outcry witness, who made a later report to DCFS regarding alleged abuse of I.M. The outcry was made to the witness on May 22, 2018. The outcry witness made a report to DCFS on May 30, 2018. When Temple was asked what the outcome of the investigation was in this case, the State objected. The trial court initially overruled the objection, stating that it would be cautious as to the weight it assigned to the DCFS report and its findings. Temple then explained the process of a DCFS investigation. After the investigation, DCFS decides the outcome of the investigation and there are two options: a finding of either unfounded or indicated. Temple was again asked what the DCFS finding was with regard to the May 2018 report. The State objected based on relevance. The trial court sustained the objection, stating that the actual DCFS finding was not relevant to Willigman's responsibility as a mandated reporter.

¶ 11 Investigator Chris Tunney of the Aurora Police Department testified that she was assigned to the child advocacy center. She investigated allegations of child abuse. In June 2018, she was assigned to investigate allegations of suspected abuse against I.M. As part of the investigation, she interviewed Willigman because Willigman was the principal at I.M.’s school and Willigman could have been a witness to the allegations. The interview was about 11 minutes and was audio recorded. The recording was played in court. A transcript of the interview was admitted into evidence.

¶ 12 The following is the discussion that occurred in the interview, pursuant to the transcript of the recording. Willigman told Tunney that I.M.’s parents showed up at school about once a month to air grievances. Willigman asked Tunney if she was aware of I.M.’s family situation and background. Tunney said she was aware. Willigman stated that around spring break of 2018 Darrell and Jacqueline came to the school. They were complaining because, according to them, a police officer had come to school, pulled some students out of class, and interviewed them. In reality, an officer had come to the school during the winter and had walked around to a few of the classrooms and introduced himself.

¶ 13 According to the transcript, Darrell and Jacqueline then asked Willigman why the school social worker was seeing I.M. Willigman told them that the school social worker was not seeing I.M. They said that I.M. was in a "psychologist meeting" with the social worker and the social worker asked I.M. to touch him. Willigman said to Tunney that, when Darrell and Jacqueline said this, "*** I'm like whoa. I'm like wait a second, where's this all coming from?" Willigman told Darrell and Jacqueline that there was no psychologist and asked when the alleged meeting took place. They told him that I.M. did not remember, that he could not remember what he ate for breakfast. Willigman said that he asked where it took place, whether I.M. told his parents or any staff members, and whether anyone else saw it. There was yelling and Willigman finally asked what they wanted. They said that they did not want I.M. to see the social worker anymore. Willigman said that was not a problem, because the social worker did not see I.M. anyway.

¶ 14 Willigman then told Tunney that Darrell and Jacqueline indicated that they had contacted DCFS or a psychologist or counselor. Willigman thought, at the time, that if they were telling the truth, he would get a call from DCFS. Willigman said that he was a parent and if his kid said something about inappropriate touching, he would be at the police station "in a heartbeat." Willigman also told Tunney that lying was "[Darrell and Jacqueline's] usual M.O." Willigman stated that he found it astonishing that when Darrell and Jacqueline showed up, the allegation of abuse was not the first thing on their list to talk about. Willigman told Tunney that, after the meeting with Darrell and Jacqueline, he went to talk to the social worker. The social worker said that he had seen I.M. only three...