2018 IL App (2d) 160577
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Anthony J. Maples was charged with tattooing a minor (720 ILCS 5/12C-35(a)) after the victim, L.L., testified he gave her multiple tattoos while she stayed at his apartment.
- L.L. testified she told Maples she was 17; her mother testified she never consented to the tattoos; a police lieutenant observed visible tattoos on L.L.
- Defense sought a continuance to subpoena an undisclosed witness (Earl Rogers); the court allowed the continuance and later permitted the State to recall L.L. for additional questioning.
- At the recalled testimony L.L. said she did not know Maples to have a medical license and showed a tattoo to the court; defense objected to this additional testimony but the court allowed it.
- The trial court found L.L. was 17, that Maples tattooed her without parental permission, and convicted Maples; Maples appealed claiming (1) the State failed to prove he lacked a medical license and (2) the State failed to prove he knew L.L. was under 18.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State was required to prove Maples was not licensed to practice medicine | The license exception is a defense/exception and need not be disproved by the State | The State must negate the exception and prove Maples was not licensed | Exception for licensed physicians withdraws persons from liability; State need not prove absence of license (affirmed) |
| Whether the State proved Maples knew the victim was under 18 when tattooing her | L.L. told Maples she was 17 while staying with him; circumstantial evidence suffices to show knowledge | Evidence did not establish Maples knew her age | Viewing testimony in context, a rational factfinder could infer Maples knew she was 17; sufficiency of evidence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Laubscher, 183 Ill. 2d 330 (1998) (discusses burden when an exception appears in the substantive offense)
- People v. Rodgers, 322 Ill. App. 3d 199 (2001) (exception withdrawing persons from liability need not be disproved by the State)
- People v. Davison, 233 Ill. 2d 30 (2009) (reviewing court must allow all reasonable inferences for the prosecution)
- People v. Miller, 30 Ill. App. 3d 643 (1975) (interpreting physician exception as an exception to liability)
- People v. Harper, 35 Ill. App. 2d 247 (1962) (same)