People v. Lattimore
955 N.E.2d 1244
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant James Lattimore was tried by bench for aggravated battery and retail theft arising from a November 25, 2008 incident at a Family Dollar Store in Chicago.
- Indictment (Dec. 23, 2008) charged robbery, aggravated battery, and retail theft; aggravated battery alleged that Lattimore knowingly and without justification caused bodily harm to James Lee, a merchant, by striking him about the body.
- At trial, store personnel and James Lee restrained Lattimore; video recordings and physical evidence (unpaid cosmetics) were introduced; Lee allegedly injured his shoulder during the struggle.
- The court convicted Lattimore of aggravated battery and retail theft, sentenced him to two years of mental health probation, and imposed fines totaling $555; he received 341 days of presentence custody credit.
- On appeal, Lattimore challenges only the aggravated battery conviction and related fines/credit, and the Illinois Appellate Court affirms the conviction and adjusts fines and mittimus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved knowingly caused bodily harm beyond a reasonable doubt. | State argues standard follows Jackson; facts support knowing mens rea. | Lattimore contends conduct was reckless, not knowing. | Jackson standard applies; sufficient evidence supports knowing mens rea. |
| Whether the State proved that Lattimore struck Lee about the body as charged. | State contends conduct caused Lee to be struck about the body. | Charge may be satisfied by causation even if not literally struck as alleged. | Variance not material; proof satisfied the charged offense. |
| Whether a private security officer can qualify as a merchant under 12-4(b)(15). | Lee, as private security, could be a merchant. | Private security officer should not be treated as merchant under statute. | A private security officer can qualify as a merchant. |
| Whether Lee qualified as a merchant (independent contractor/employee relationship) for purposes of 12-4(b)(15). | Evidence shows Lee acted as an independent contractor/merchant at store. | Employment relationship ambiguous; could undermine charge. | Lee could be an independent contractor and thus a merchant under 16A-2.4; predicate for conviction remains. |
| Whether Lattimore is entitled to an offset against fines under 110-14 for presentence custody. | Court services fee and other costs properly imposed; credits due. | Credit for time served should offset fines; some fees misapplied. | Fines reduced by $250 and mittimus corrected; 110-14 credit applied to appropriate fines. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill.2d 274 (Ill. 2004) (Jackson standard adopted for sufficiency review in Illinois)
- People v. Collins, 106 Ill.2d 237 (Ill. 1985) (Jackson-based sufficiency review; deference to trier of fact)
- People v. Belk, 203 Ill.2d 187 (Ill. 2003) (for forcible felonies/intent context; distinguishes Belk from bar to know conduct)
- People v. Schmidt, 392 Ill.App.3d 689 (Ill. App. 2009) (escape-related aggravated battery; factual distinctions from Belk)
- People v. Rickman, 73 Ill.App.3d 755 (Ill. App. 1979) (knowingly scuffled with officer; responsibility for consequences of scuffle)