People v. Dorsey
2016 IL App (4th) 140734
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Chad L. Dorsey was indicted for multiple offenses after fleeing police, entering a downstairs apartment, struggling with officers, disarming an officer, discharging a Taser, breaking a window, and escaping; he had pleaded guilty to disarming a peace officer (count III) and was tried on a separate home‑invasion count (count IV) alleging he intentionally caused injury to a person inside the dwelling.
- The victims (husband, wife Trisha Baker, and two daughters) were home; defendant shoved the older daughter, ran through the apartment, struggled with Officer Stoll, knocked Stoll’s Taser free, shot the Taser at the wall, and later broke the kitchen window; the family fled upstairs during the struggle.
- Trisha testified she and her younger daughter were crying and were ‘‘really, really, really shaken’’ and continued to feel unsafe at trial; she had not sought medical or psychological treatment.
- The trial court granted directed verdicts on two other home‑invasion counts but found defendant guilty on count IV after a bench trial, concluding psychological injury qualifies as "any injury" under the home‑invasion statute. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms (16 years on count IV).
- Defendant appealed, arguing (1) psychological injury alone—absent physical contact—does not satisfy the statute’s injury element, and (2) the State failed to prove he intentionally caused Trisha’s psychological injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "any injury" under the home‑invasion statute includes purely psychological injury absent physical contact | State: "Any injury" includes psychological injury; testimony showing fear and lasting effects is sufficient | Dorsey: Prior cases relied on physical contact; psychological injury should require some physical contact | Court: "Any injury" encompasses physical or psychological injury; no physical‑contact requirement |
| Sufficiency of evidence that defendant intentionally caused victim's psychological injury | State: Defendant’s violent entry, shoving, struggle, disarming and Taser use made psychological harm the natural and probable consequence of his conduct | Dorsey: No direct evidence he intended to cause psychological harm; no treatment or expert proof of injury | Court: Evidence (conduct, presence of children, struggle, property damage, discharged Taser) permitted reasonable inference of intent; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hudson, 228 Ill. 2d 181 (Ill. 2008) (holds "any injury" in home‑invasion statute includes psychological injury and rejects limiting to physical harm)
- People v. Ehrich, 165 Ill. App. 3d 1060 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988) (concludes emotional trauma qualifies as injury for home‑invasion)
- People v. Garrett, 281 Ill. App. 3d 535 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (discusses bodily harm and aggravating factors where physical contact occurred)
- People v. Garza, 125 Ill. App. 3d 182 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984) (addresses requirement of physical injury in rape‑related home‑invasion context)