People v. Cole
2017 IL App (2d) 160334
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Michael T. Cole (defendant) was convicted after a bench trial of child abduction by a noncustodial parent (720 ILCS 5/10-5(b)(3)(B)).
- Daughter D.C. (about 1½) lived with mother Evonne Bishop; Cole had acknowledged paternity but no custody order; parental arrangements were informal.
- Bishop had agreed Cole could take D.C. to breakfast the next morning; Cole arrived at ~3:30 a.m., picked the sleeping child up and left in his truck.
- Bishop testified she had earlier given permission for a breakfast outing but said she did not consent "at that point in time" to the 3:30 a.m. removal; she did not physically object and did not immediately call Cole after he left but called police; Cole later returned D.C. when asked.
- The trial court found guilt based on the early-morning removal, concluding Bishop did not consent and that the taking involved noninjurious force; Cole was sentenced to probation and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that removal was without mother’s consent | Bishop’s subsequent 911 call, timing (3:30 a.m.), and defendant’s conduct support an inference of nonconsent | Bishop had given permission for a breakfast outing; her silence and conduct (no protest, later asking for return) show consent or at least no communicated withdrawal | Reversed: evidence insufficient — mother’s testimony showed consent and no communicated withdrawal before removal; silence and conduct indicated tacit consent or acceptance |
| Required mens rea for lack of consent element | Implicit: jury could infer defendant knew or was reckless about lack of consent from circumstances | Defendant argued State failed to prove intent/knowledge/recklessness as to mother’s lack of consent | Court: consent is an element requiring proof of defendant’s culpable mental state, and State did not prove he knew or was reckless about lack of consent |
| Admissibility of other‑crimes evidence (post‑incident altercation) | Offered to rebut defense testimony that defendant was a good father or to show fear of defendant | Defendant argued the November incident (10 months later) was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial under Rule 404(b) | Court said admission was error but unnecessary to decide given reversal on sufficiency; noted the evidence’s limited relevance and prejudicial character |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
- People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237 (Illinois adoption of Jackson sufficiency standard)
- People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274 (requirement that appellate courts determine whether a fact finder could reasonably accept eyewitness testimony)
- People v. Pettus, 84 Ill. App. 3d 390 (discussion that lack of consent is an element of child abduction)