People v. Grant
2016 IL App (5th) 130416-B
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- James E. Grant was committed under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (SDP Act) after guilty pleas and an SDP petition stemming from multiple 1997–1999 incidents, including a home invasion and burglaries involving women’s underwear.
- In July 2012 Grant filed a recovery application seeking discharge; a three-evaluator team recommended conditional release as low risk, but the State obtained a court-appointed independent examiner (Dr. Stanislaus) whose report supported continued commitment.
- A jury originally found Grant remained sexually dangerous; this court reversed because the trial court had improperly appointed the State’s choice of independent examiner; the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the reversal and directed this court to address issues likely to recur on remand.
- At the challenged hearing the State elicited testimony from the alleged home-invasion victim (Pearman), a witness to an uncharged 1997 school incident (Warren), and investigating officers; the State also played Grant’s recorded confession.
- Grant moved in limine to exclude Pearman’s testimony, Warren’s account of the uncharged school incident, officers’ investigative details, and the confession as irrelevant or unduly prejudicial; the trial court denied the motion.
- This court holds the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion in limine in full: Warren’s and Pearman’s testimony and the confession should be excluded on remand; officer testimony must be limited to basic facts of the convictions, with experts allowed to relate relied-upon facts only for the basis of their opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Grant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Pearman, Warren, officers, and confession (motion in limine) | Evidence is relevant to show propensity and current dangerousness; experts relied on these facts | Testimony/confession irrelevant to present condition and prejudicial; uncharged incident inadmissible without conviction | Court abused discretion by denying motion in limine entirely; Warren and Pearman testimony and recorded confession must be excluded on remand; officer testimony limited to basic facts underlying convictions; experts may discuss relied-upon facts for opinion basis only |
| Admissibility of uncharged school incident (Warren) | Incident shows pattern/propensity to commit sexual acts | No arrest or conviction; testimony is not evidence of a crime and is irrelevant | Warren’s testimony was inadmissible and should be excluded (arrest/conviction are required to prove commission of a crime) |
| Failure to define “clear and convincing” sua sponte | No requirement to define the term; instruction stating standard suffices | Jurors needed a definition to apply the burden correctly; plain error | No plain-error requirement to define term; stating the required standard without defining it is acceptable — court not required to give a definition sua sponte |
| Refusal to give seven nonpattern jury instructions defining statutory terms | Existing pattern instructions and ordinary meanings suffice; proposed instructions risk confusion | Jurors needed precise statutory definitions (e.g., "sex offense") due to expert disagreement | Trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing long, citation-heavy nonpattern instructions; ordinary meanings and pattern instructions adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Burns, 209 Ill. 2d 551 (2004) (describing SDP Act commitment procedure)
- People v. Trainor, 196 Ill. 2d 318 (2001) (procedural protections and rights in SDP recovery proceedings)
- People v. Studdard, 82 Ill. App. 3d 736 (1980) (recovery hearing focuses on current mental condition)
- People v. Allen, 107 Ill. 2d 91 (1985) (what demonstrates a propensity to commit sex crimes)
- People v. Lawton, 212 Ill. 2d 285 (2004) (use of prior conviction records to show propensity)
- In re R.W., 332 Ill. App. 3d 901 (2002) (court not required to define "clear and convincing" in instructions)
- People v. Beshears, 65 Ill. App. 2d 446 (1965) (arrest evidence without conviction is inadmissible to prove commission of a crime)