People v. Mayo
79 N.E.3d 359
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Eduardo Mayo (23) with IQ ~48 and developmental functioning ~3-year-old was found unfit to stand trial on charges of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and battery after an incident in an East Dundee Walmart bathroom where a 15-year-old male with Down syndrome reported that Mayo grabbed his penis through clothing.
- Surveillance video showed the victim and defendant exiting the bathroom together; video also showed defendant entering/exiting the bathroom six times over ~45 minutes and the victim looking back at defendant after exiting.
- Victim disclosed the incident two days later; investigators showed the victim a still photo and he identified defendant and pointed to his groin.
- Experts and witnesses: Dr. Kuzia (psychologist) relied on prior evaluation references suggesting a prior school incident and opined defendant posed a sexual-risk and needed monitoring; defense witnesses from defendant’s group home testified he was passive, nonaggressive, required constant supervision, and had shown no sexualized behavior there.
- Trial court found the victim and prosecution witnesses credible and entered a “not not guilty” finding (the discharge-hearing equivalent of a finding of guilt for unfit defendants). The appellate court reviewed whether the evidence sufficed to prove the required mens rea given defendant’s severe cognitive impairments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved defendant knowingly touched victim for sexual gratification (aggravated sexual abuse) | Circumstantial evidence (touching through clothing, multiple trips to bathroom, victim’s look back, alleged prior incidents, alleged pornography orders) supports inference of sexual intent | Defendant’s extreme cognitive impairment and testimony from caregivers show lack of capacity for intent; prior incidents were vague; surveillance and behavior do not prove sexual purpose | Reversed — insufficient evidence to prove sexual-intent beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether evidence proved defendant knowingly made insulting/provoking contact (battery) | The physical contact (grabbing penis through clothing) was knowingly insulting/provoking | Defendant lacked the mental capacity to be "knowingly" aware that contact was insulting or provoking; no adequate evidence of consciousness of result | Reversed — insufficient evidence to prove knowing contact beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Admissibility/weight of expert reliance on hearsay (expert opinion support) | Expert may rely on prior reports and hearsay under standards for expert opinions | Reliance on vague, unsubstantiated prior incidents is insufficient to support the required mens rea here given defendant’s deficits | Court found expert reliance on unspecific prior incidents inadequate to establish sexual dangerousness or mens rea |
| Whether circumstantial evidence (bathroom location, multiple entries) permits inferring intent despite defendant’s disabilities | Location, repeated entries, and victim’s reaction allow reasonable inference of predatory intent | Defendant’s documented inability to plan or act with intent undermines inference from circumstantial facts | Court held circumstantial facts were insufficient given overwhelming evidence of defendant’s limited mental capacity |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Waid, 221 Ill. 2d 464 (discharge hearing is not a criminal prosecution; not not guilty finding explained)
- People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237 (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Burton, 399 Ill. App. 3d 809 (intent to sexually gratify may be inferred from nature of act where defendant not developmentally disabled)
- People v. Lovejoy, 235 Ill. 2d 97 (expert may rely on hearsay materials under appropriate rules)
- People v. Sanchez, 292 Ill. App. 3d 763 (mens rea generally proved by circumstantial evidence)