In re Davontay A.
3 N.E.3d 871
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Two juvenile brothers (Davontay, 13; Donavon, 12) were tried together for multiple sex-related offenses arising from a December 1, 2010 incident on a school bus involving a 13‑year‑old girl (K.J.D.).
- Trial evidence included the victim’s testimony describing respondents touching and "humping" her and a ~40‑minute bus surveillance DVD; respondents testified and denied the sexual contact.
- The trial court found Davontay guilty of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (and merged related counts) and Donavon guilty of attempt aggravated criminal sexual abuse (and merged related counts); both also found guilty of aggravated battery on some counts.
- Both were adjudicated delinquent, made wards of the court, and placed on probation with conditions; the court added a $200 statutory "sexual assault" fine to each sentence.
- Respondents appealed, arguing (1) the State failed to prove the element that the touching was for sexual gratification/arousal and (2) the $200 sexual assault fine does not lawfully apply to juveniles adjudicated delinquent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved respondents acted for sexual gratification/arousal (element of sexual conduct) | The victim’s testimony and in‑court viewings of the DVD support an inference that touching and simulated sex acts were for sexual gratification/arousal | Respondents: their acts were immature/aimed at humiliating the victim; cannot infer sexual intent from juveniles’ conduct | Court: Affirmed — factfinder reasonably inferred sexual gratification/arousal given victim testimony and context; not against manifest weight of evidence |
| Whether a $200 sexual assault fine (730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.7(b)(1)) may be imposed on juveniles adjudicated delinquent | State: fine should apply to juveniles (including those who plead/are adjudicated) to avoid absurd results and disparate treatment | Respondents: statute imposes fine only on persons who plead guilty, are convicted, or receive court supervision — juveniles adjudicated delinquent are none of these | Court: Vacated the $200 fine — statute’s plain language does not include juvenile delinquency adjudications or wards; cannot rewrite statute to add them |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Alexander, 369 Ill. App. 3d 955 (analysis that "sexual gratification" may be proved circumstantially)
- People v. Burton, 399 Ill. App. 3d 809 (adult intent in sexual‑acts cases can be inferred)
- In re Matthew K., 355 Ill. App. 3d 652 (12‑year‑old: insufficient evidence of sexual gratification where no circumstantial signs or expert support)
- In re D.H., 381 Ill. App. 3d 737 (caution against automatically imputing adult intent to children)
- In re Jonathon C.B., 2011 IL 107750 (juvenile adjudications are not convictions)
- In re Veronica C., 239 Ill. 2d 134 (juveniles may not be placed on supervision after adjudication)
- People v. Taylor, 221 Ill. 2d 157 (statutory interpretation: apply clear language as written)