People v. Maxwell
2011 IL App (4th) 100434
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Indictment charged Donnie Maxwell with two counts predatory criminal sexual assault, three counts criminal sexual assault, one count aggravated criminal sexual abuse, involving V.M. from 2000–2007.
- Trial evidence included V.M.’s testimony and medical findings by Horndasch showing hymenal trauma consistent with penetration.
- Defense cross-exam questioned whether hymen damage could be from third parties; trial court limited such questioning under rape-shield statute.
- Defense offered proof that an alternative perpetrator could have caused hymenal damage, but the offer lacked specifics and was not pursued in camera as required.
- Medical testimony acknowledged ambivalence about ejaculation; jury credibility determinations upheld given other corroborating evidence, including sister D.M. and child’s account.
- Court vacated a $15 Child Advocacy Center assessment as ex post facto because it imposed a punishment for offenses before the statute authorized the fee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation under rape-shield | State relied on prior sexual-history limits; defense sought third-party explicable mechanisms. | Defense needed to explore alternative causes for hymenal damage to present a complete defense. | No reversible error; offer of proof lacking proper in-camera basis; statute compliance adequate. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for sexual offenses | Evidence supports elements beyond reasonable doubt including ejaculation and hymenal injury. | Ambivalence about ejaculation creates reasonable doubt. | Rational jury could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Admissibility of third-party mechanism for hymenal damage | Hymenal damage could reflect another man’s intercourse; evidence should be admissible. | Defense should be allowed to present alternative explanation. | Not admissible without specific, corroborated offer of proof; remedy requires a targeted in-camera showing. |
| Ex post facto nature of CAC assignment | Assessment statute applied retroactively to defendant’s offenses. | Assessment imposed before statute’s effective date; unconstitutional ex post facto punishment. | Vacated the CAC assessment; remanded to amend sentencing judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sandoval, 135 Ill. 2d 159 (1990) (rape-shield doctrine implicated in admissibility of prior sexual activity evidence)
- People v. Grano, 286 Ill. App. 3d 278 (1996) (limits on admissibility of sexual-history evidence; need to show material relevance and probative value)
- People v. Anthony Roy W., 324 Ill. App. 3d 181 (2001) (admission of third-party sexual activity evidence requires concrete linkage to the crime or victim’s condition)
- People v. Hill, 289 Ill. App. 3d 859 (1997) (exception to rape-shield for age-inappropriate knowledge; contextual limits on third-party evidence)
- People v. Bruce, 185 Ill. App. 3d 356 (1989) (admissibility of third-party evidence requires reasonably specific information and proper nexus to case)
- People v. Grant, 232 Ill. App. 3d 93 (1992) (requirement of specific offer of proof under 115-7(b) before admitting third-party sexual activity evidence)
- People v. Williams, 405 Ill. App. 3d 958 (2010) (characterization of child-advocacy center assessments as punishments, not costs; ex post facto concern)