People v. Johnson, 2017 IL App (2d) 141241

Defendant Calvin Johnson and victim C.J., long-married, separated and in the process of divorce; repeated hostile contacts in months before April 11, 2013.
On April 11, defendant entered C.J.’s car at her workplace, displayed a knife (and showed a gun in a bag), threatened to kill her, and forced her to drive to a Motel 6.
At the motel, C.J. testified defendant removed her clothes and had intercourse over her protests; she exhibited crying, shaking, and physical injuries consistent with sexual trauma; a subsequent exam found a perineal tear and bruises.
Police recovered a butcher knife at defendant’s home matching C.J.’s description; coworkers and family corroborated C.J.’s emotional state after the incident.
Defendant testified the encounter and sex were consensual; the trial court found C.J. credible and convicted defendant of criminal sexual assault and related counts after a bench trial.
At sentencing the court ordered a presentence report that included a statutorily unauthorized sex-offender evaluation (defendant was subject to a mandatory prison term); the evaluator labeled defendant a pedophile and reported deception during testing. Court sentenced defendant to six years’ imprisonment for criminal sexual assault and concurrent probation/jail terms for other counts. Defendant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions	Evidence (C.J.’s credible testimony, corroboration by medical exam, witnesses, defendant’s demeanor/history) supports conviction	C.J. was inconsistent and not credible; defendant’s account of consensual sex was more believable	Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Plain error from ordering/considering a sex-offender evaluation when defendant faced a mandatory prison term	Trial court’s consideration of the evaluation did not affect sentence; evaluation was largely dismissed and court relied on case facts for aggravation	Ordering an evaluation was prohibited by statute for defendants facing mandatory prison; consideration of the report at sentencing was plain error requiring remand	Mixed: Court found clear statutory error in ordering the evaluation but no plain-error relief because defendant failed to show prejudice — the court concluded the evaluation did not affect sentence and affirmed

People v. Collins, 214 Ill. 2d 206 (statement of standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539 (plain-error framework in sentencing context)
People v. Davison, 233 Ill. 2d 30 (statutory construction principles)
People v. Campbell, 146 Ill. 2d 363 (deference to trier of fact on witness credibility)
People v. Adams, 109 Ill. 2d 102 (minor inconsistencies do not necessarily create reasonable doubt)
People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845 (scope of second‑prong plain‑error review; fairness/integrity focus)