People v. Heller
71 N.E.3d 1113
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Alan W. Heller was charged with domestic battery and aggravated domestic battery for allegedly grabbing and choking his girlfriend, Tracy Shults, on January 11, 2014; a separate methamphetamine charge was later dismissed.
- The State filed a pretrial motion under 725 ILCS 5/115-7.4 to admit testimony about a prior 2010 domestic-battery incident involving defendant’s then-wife, Barbara Heller; the trial court admitted that evidence.
- At trial Shults recanted her pretrial statements to police; the State impeached her with a recorded January 28, 2014 police interview in which she described choking and being struck by defendant.
- Barbara testified about the 2010 incident where defendant allegedly struck her repeatedly while on top of her at her home; photographs of her injuries were admitted and sent back with the jury (defendant acquiesced).
- The jury convicted defendant of domestic battery (felony based on priors) but acquitted on aggravated domestic battery; the court sentenced him to 4½ years’ imprisonment and imposed fines and assessments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict of domestic battery | Shults’ recorded statements and Barbara’s other-crimes testimony supported conviction | Shults’ recantation made her statements unreliable; other-crimes evidence was suspect | Conviction upheld; jury could credit the recorded statement and Barbara’s testimony; evidence sufficient |
| Admissibility of other-crimes evidence under §115-7.4 | Evidence of 2010 incident was admissible to show relevance, similarity, and propensity | Admission was an abuse of discretion; differences made incidents dissimilar | No abuse of discretion; similarities (positioning, motive, location) supported admission |
| Prejudice from State’s emphasis on other-crimes evidence | State properly presented limited, relevant other-crimes evidence | State unduly focused on other-crimes evidence and created a mini-trial | No undue prejudice; testimony was limited and not cumulative; photographs went back with jury after defendant’s assent |
| Jury limiting instruction on other-crimes evidence | Instruction was acceptable as given by agreement | Instruction improperly told jury it could consider evidence only for similarity and proximity (not propensity) | Instruction was erroneous in theory but defendant acquiesced, forfeiting review; not reviewed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lucas, 231 Ill. 2d 169 (2008) (State must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Smith, 185 Ill. 2d 532 (1999) (testimony of a single, credible witness can support conviction)
- People v. Dabbs, 239 Ill. 2d 277 (2010) (§115-7.4 permits other-domestic-violence acts to be admitted and used for any relevant purpose, including propensity)
- People v. Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d 92 (2007) (standard of review for sufficiency: view evidence in light most favorable to the State)
- People v. Bradford, 2016 Ill. 118674 (2016) (court of review will not substitute its credibility assessments for the jury)