People v. Nelson, 2019 IL App (2d) 161097

Defendant William J. Nelson had an order of protection against him prohibiting direct or indirect contact with Heather Pittman (including mail); no provision named his infant daughter.
Defendant consulted two public defenders (York and Nevdal) and says they told him sending letters to his daughter would not violate the order; he did not make a formal offer of proof about their testimony at trial.
Defendant sent multiple letters addressed to his daughter at Pittman’s residence; letters contained material directly addressing Pittman (requests for pictures, references to paternity and sexual history, information about sending money, pamphlet on STDs, and other statements about Pittman).
The State charged defendant with violating the order of protection; proof included service of the order and Pittman’s testimony about the letters. Defendant did not testify.
Trial court barred testimony about the public defenders’ advice (motion in limine granted) but allowed defendant to testify about his knowledge generally; jury convicted and sentenced to concurrent six-year terms.
On appeal, defendant argued denial of his right to present a defense by excluding the lawyers’ advice; the appellate court reviewed admissibility and relevance and affirmed.

Issue	People’s Argument	Nelson’s Argument	Held
Whether excluding testimony about attorneys’ alleged advice denied defendant his right to present a defense / barred a mistake-of-law defense	The statute requires only that the defendant knowingly commit the act and have notice of the order; evidence of legal advice is irrelevant to those elements	Advice from public defenders negates the knowing-actor element and supports a mistake-of-law defense	Court held exclusion was proper: parts of letters were clearly directed to Pittman, so attorneys’ testimony would have been irrelevant and would not alter the outcome

Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (defendant has constitutional right to present a defense)
Manion, 67 Ill. 2d 564 (1977) (right to present evidence that negates elements of offense)
Woods, 214 Ill. 2d 455 (2005) (preservation requirement for appellate review)
Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill. 2d 1 (2003) (need for adequate offer of proof)
Reynolds, 302 Ill. App. 3d 722 (1999) (letter to child containing message to protected person properly excluded as irrelevant)
Mandic, 325 Ill. App. 3d 544 (2001) (elements of violating an order of protection)
Hayes, 353 Ill. App. 3d 578 (2004) (trial court may exclude irrelevant or unreliable evidence)
Beahringer v. Page, 204 Ill. 2d 363 (2003) (appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record)