People v. Goodwin
2017 IL App (5th) 140432
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Bonita D. Goodwin was charged with one felony count of threatening a public official after allegedly telling corrections officer Tonya Atteberry she was “thinking about killing you” and could “show up at your house with a gun.”
- The incident arose after a traffic stop and subsequent arrest process; Atteberry attempted booking at the county jail and asked suicide/ self-harm screening questions before the alleged threat was made.
- At trial the State presented testimony from three deputies and Atteberry; Atteberry identified herself only as “a correctional officer at the Shelby County Detention Center” and did not testify that she was a sworn law enforcement officer or identify her employer.
- The trial judge ruled (citing People v. Hale) that a person holding the position of a corrections officer is a "public official," instructed the jury accordingly, and denied Goodwin's motion for directed verdict on that basis.
- The jury convicted Goodwin of threatening a public official; she was sentenced and appealed the threat conviction.
- The Fifth District reversed, holding the State failed to prove Atteberry met the statutory definition of a "public official" (specifically, that she was a sworn law enforcement or peace officer); because the State's trial evidence was insufficient, double jeopardy bars retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the victim qualified as a “public official” under 720 ILCS 5/12-9(b)(1) | The trial court correctly ruled (and State defends) that a corrections officer is a public official; jury should decide if Atteberry was such | Atteberry was only shown to be a "correctional officer" — State failed to prove she was a sworn law enforcement/peace officer as required by statute | Reversed: State failed to prove Atteberry was a public official (no evidence she was sworn); trial court erred in instructing jury that corrections officer is a public official |
| Sufficiency of evidence to sustain conviction | Evidence of the threat and context satisfied elements once Atteberry was treated as a public official | Evidence was legally insufficient because the State did not prove the essential element that the threatened person was statutorily a public official | Evidence insufficient beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction reversed |
| Proper scope of trial-court legal determination of "nature of the office" | Court may decide as a matter of law whether an office qualifies under the statute; factual status of person for jury | Trial court erred in treating "correctional officer" as per se a public official without evidence of sworn status | Court: the nature of the office is a question of law, but here the statutory category at issue required sworn status which the State did not prove |
| Whether retrial is permitted after reversal for insufficient evidence | State implied retrial should be allowed | Defendant argued double jeopardy bars retrial because reversal was based on insufficient evidence presented at trial | Double jeopardy bars retrial where prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence at first trial (citing Burks) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Carrie, 358 Ill. App. 3d 805 (examined statutory definition of "public official" under prior wording)
- People v. Muniz, 354 Ill. App. 3d 392 (cited by defense on public-official definition)
- People v. Iozzo, 195 Ill. App. 3d 1078 (discusses prosecutorial burden and State's power)
- People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274 (due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary for conviction)
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (double jeopardy forbids retrial when conviction reversed for insufficiency of evidence)
- People v. De Filippo, 387 Ill. App. 3d 322 (discusses difference between sworn deputies and civilian correctional officers)