People v. Bingham
987 N.E.2d 1023
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- The State petitioned Julianna Bingham to be declared a sexually dangerous person under the SDPA; the trial court committed her to the Department of Corrections.
- The petition cited numerous prior alleged sexual acts dating 2005–2011, including touching buttocks, kissing, and other improper conduct, plus an incident with a teacher and a Grace House incident with a 17-year-old.
- Experts Jeckel and Killian evaluated Bingham; Jeckel diagnosed mixed personality disorder with antisocial features and found she could not process personal responsibility, suggesting serious difficulty controlling sexual behavior; Killian diagnosed ADHD, antisocial personality disorder, and a possible sexual identity disorder with impulsive tendencies.
- The trial court found Bingham suffered from a mental disorder and propensities toward sex offenses, and it concluded there was a substantial probability she would commit such offenses if not confined.
- On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed, holding the State failed to prove (a) a mental disorder with serious difficulty controlling behavior accompanied by substantial probability, (b) propensities to commit sex offenses, and (c) propensities toward acts of sexual assault or molestation of children; the evidence did not establish molestation of children or sufficient sexual assault propensity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mental disorder and serious difficulty standard | State contends defendant has a mental disorder and serious difficulty controlling behavior. | Bingham argues the State failed to prove serious difficulty and substantial probability of future offenses. | Serious difficulty shown, but no explicit substantial probability finding; reversal warranted. |
| Propensity to commit sex offenses | State argues defendant exhibited propensities to commit sex offenses based on identified incidents. | Bingham contends evidence is insufficient to prove a propensity to commit sex offenses. | Propensity not proven; evidence insufficient to establish criminal propensities to sex offenses. |
| Sexual assault or molestation of children | State asserts defendant demonstrated propensities toward acts of sexual assault or molestation of children. | Bingham argues there was no proven act of sexual assault or molestation of a child. | State failed to prove demonstrated propensities toward sexual assault or molestation of children. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. 2002) (requires serious difficulty controlling behavior in commitment standards)
- People v. Masterson, 207 Ill. 2d 305 (Ill. 2003) (definition of mental disorder for SDPA inclusion tied to serious difficulty)
- People v. Allen, 107 Ill. 2d 91 (Ill. 1985) (requires proof that the defendant demonstrated this propensity)
- People v. Hancock, 329 Ill. App. 3d 367 (Ill. App. 2002) (propensity evidence may be shown by prior acts to pursue sexual urges)
- People v. Bailey, 405 Ill. App. 3d 154 (Ill. App. 2010) (review standard for SDPA sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Beksel, 125 Ill. App. 2d 322 (Ill. App. 1970) (definition and scope of molestation under SDPA context)