People v. Chromik
408 Ill. App. 3d 1028
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Defendant Stephen Chromik was charged with criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse arising from alleged acts with K.B., a minor aged between 13 and 17.
- Jury acquitted Chromik of criminal sexual assault but convicted him of aggravated criminal sexual abuse.
- K.B. testified about an initial incident in a school shed on May 1, 2008, where Chromik allegedly touched and attempted to remove her clothing.
- On May 9, 2008, K.B. attended a soccer game, then went to Chromik’s apartment, where she drank alcohol and testified to subsequent sexual contact.
- Investigators collected phone records showing extensive calls/texts between Chromik and K.B. from May to July 2008, and a school administrator documented text messages read by K.B.
- Chromik appealed on multiple grounds, including sufficiency of the evidence, confrontation rights, remaining silent, and admissibility of prior-bad-act and text-message evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for the charged offense | Chromik argues the victim’s account is incredible and lacking corroboration. | The only evidence of sexual conduct is the victim’s testimony, which is implausible. | Evidence sufficient; reasonable jury could convict on aggravated criminal sexual abuse. |
| Right to confront and cross-examine on prior sexual conduct | State contends no right to cross-examine on victim’s prior sexual activity applies. | Chromik preserved his right to test the victim's prior sexual conduct. | No reversible error; cross-examination limited and harmless given acquittal on the related count. |
| Right to remain silent and prosecutor’s comment | Prosecutor incorrectly suggested Chromik could testify, affecting his rights. | The remark compelled Chromik to testify or prejudiced the jury. | Error cured by limiting instruction; waived by Chromik’s choice to testify. |
| Admission of prior-bad-acts (shed incident) evidence | Evidence of the shed incident supports course of conduct and investigation. | It was unfairly prejudicial and should have been limited. | Admissible; not unduly prejudicial; properly explained within probative frameworks. |
| Admission of the text-messaging transcript document | Transcript authenticated to reflect messages read by victim and corroborated by phone records. | Foundation/authentication and best-evidence concerns were not satisfied. | Admission proper; document authenticated as transcription of messages; weight for jury to determine. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Givens, 237 Ill.2d 311 (2010) (standard for sufficiency and weighing evidence in criminal trials)
- People v. Johnson, 194 Ill.2d 305 (2000) (limits on admissibility of prior-bad-acts evidence; balancing prejudice)
- People v. Johnson, 406 Ill.App.3d 805 (2010) (shed-incident evidence and corroboration in context of other-crimes evidence)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (jurors follow instructions; presumption of following court instructions)
- United States v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424 (1943) (compulsion vs. voluntary testimony in Fifth Amendment context)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (limiting instruction and admissibility in other-crimes context)
- People v. Henderson, 336 Ill.App.3d 915 (2003) (proper balancing and admissibility of prior-bad-acts evidence)
- People v. Nunley, 271 Ill.App.3d 427 (1995) (mini-trial concerns and limiting the scope of other-crimes evidence)
- People v. Hall, 194 Ill.2d 305 (2000) (harmless error when evidence admitted without prejudice; balancing not reversible)