2015 IL App (2d) 130387
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant DeAndrea Jones was charged and tried by jury for aggravated battery to a peace officer and obstructing a peace officer; convicted on both counts and sentenced to five years. A separate domestic-battery charge was severed.
- Officer John Loechel responded to a neighbor’s report of a physical domestic disturbance and went onto defendant’s enclosed porch after seeing an argument and smelling alcohol.
- Loechel identified himself, asked to investigate and asked Jones to step outside; Jones refused, insisted it was his house, and remained belligerent.
- Loechel grabbed Jones’s arm when Jones moved toward the main door; a struggle ensued, Jones was taken to the ground, kicked the officer, and the officer pushed Jones outside. Additional officers arrived and Jones was tased and arrested.
- On appeal Jones argued the State failed to prove the officer was engaged in an "authorized act" when he remained on the porch (rendering the obstructing conviction invalid); he also argued the trial court should have instructed on self-defense for the aggravated-battery charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer was performing an "authorized act" when remaining on defendant's porch (obstructing charge) | Loechel was authorized to investigate a domestic disturbance and to remain to determine if assistance was needed | Once Jones said "no problem," Guzman showed no injuries and asked for no help, Loechel’s authority to remain ended; remaining was unauthorized | Reversed obstructing conviction — officer’s continued presence was not authorized absent exigent circumstances |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry/remain | The initial entry/on-porch was authorized due to report of arguing, sounds of breaking, intoxication | No evidence of injuries, broken door, or other facts showing exigency after initial check | No exigent circumstances shown here after initial investigation; authority to stay ended when no violence/evidence was found |
| Whether trial court should have given a sua sponte self-defense instruction for aggravated battery | State: no excessive-force evidence; officer performed official duties in effecting arrest | Jones: alleged that unlawful continuation of officer’s presence tainted subsequent acts and justified resisting/arrest | No plain error — no substantial evidence of excessive force; refusal to give instruction not reversible; aggravated-battery conviction affirmed |
| Whether unlawful nature of officer’s presence invalidates aggravated-battery conviction | State: aggravated-battery requires officer performing official duties, which occurred when effecting arrest | Jones: if the underlying presence was unauthorized, all subsequent acts were tainted and cannot support aggravated-battery | Court rejects this argument (forfeited and unsupported); aggravated-battery upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Champaign v. Torres, 214 Ill. 2d 234 (Illinois Supreme Court) (officer’s entry or remaining in a home in violation of Fourth Amendment is not an "authorized act" under obstructing statute)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. Supreme Court) (warrantless entry into a home to make an arrest is presumptively unconstitutional absent exigent circumstances)
- People v. Foskey, 136 Ill. 2d 66 (Illinois Supreme Court) (State bears burden to prove exigent circumstances for warrantless searches or arrests)
- People v. Santana, 121 Ill. App. 3d 265 (Appellate Court) (exigent circumstances justified entry where door was damaged and parties had visible injuries)
- People v. Sims, 374 Ill. App. 3d 427 (Appellate Court) (sufficient evidence of excessive force can require a self-defense instruction)