People v. Mayo
2017 IL App (2d) 150390
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Eduardo Mayo (23) with IQ ~48 and developmental functioning ~3 years was indicted for aggravated criminal sexual abuse (touching a 15-year-old male's penis through clothing) and battery after a Walmart bathroom incident.
- Defendant was found unfit to stand trial; a discharge hearing (to determine a "not not guilty" finding) was held under the same proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard as a criminal trial.
- Surveillance video showed defendant entering/exiting the bathroom multiple times; victim exited looking back at defendant. Victim with Down Syndrome reported being grabbed in the groin; he identified defendant from a still photo.
- Prosecution presented victim testimony, surveillance stills, investigator testimony, and Dr. Kuzia’s fitness/dangerousness opinion (relying in part on a prior school incident referenced in a prior report).
- Defense presented testimony from caregivers and CILA staff describing defendant as passive, nonsexual, requiring constant direction, with no prior sexual-aggressive behavior. Court found victim and State witnesses credible and concluded defendant was "not not guilty" of both counts. Appellate court reversed for insufficiency of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Mayo’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved defendant knowingly touched victim for defendant’s sexual gratification (aggravated sexual abuse) | Circumstantial evidence (single genital touch, video showing repeated bathroom entries, victim’s fearful look, prior alleged incidents, alleged pornography order) supports inference of sexual intent | Defendant’s severe cognitive deficits and testimony from caregivers show inability to form sexual intent; prior incidents and porn allegation lack detail; video/behavior do not prove intent | Reversed — evidence insufficient to prove sexual gratification beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether contact was knowingly insulting or provoking (battery) | The genital grab was knowingly insulting/provoking given conduct and circumstances | Defendant’s mental incapacity precludes finding he was consciously aware that such contact was practically certain to be insulting or provoking; no other evidence of knowledge | Reversed — evidence insufficient to prove knowing insulting/provoking contact |
| Whether expert testimony and prior-incident hearsay supported dangerousness/intent finding | Expert (Kuzia) could rely on prior report and referenced incidents to opine dangerousness and support intent inference | Prior incidents were vague/unsubstantiated; expert’s reliance lacked detail linking past conduct to sexual intent here; post-incident caregiver testimony highly relevant | Reversed — expert testimony and hearsay references were insufficient to establish intent or knowledge |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Waid, 221 Ill. 2d 464 (2006) (discharge hearing is not a criminal prosecution; purpose is to determine whether to enter a judgment of acquittal)
- People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237 (1985) (standard of review—whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Burton, 399 Ill. App. 3d 809 (2010) (intent to sexually gratify can be inferred from nature of act where defendant is an adult without developmental disabilities)
- People v. Lovejoy, 235 Ill. 2d 97 (2009) (experts may rely on otherwise inadmissible hearsay under Rule 703)
- People v. Price, 225 Ill. App. 3d 1032 (1992) (appellate court should not substitute its judgment for trier of fact unless trial finding is inherently implausible)
- People v. Sanchez, 292 Ill. App. 3d 763 (1997) (mens rea usually proved by circumstantial evidence)