2018 IL App (2d) 151102
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Eric M. Pence was charged with one count of disorderly conduct for sending a Facebook message to D.K., a 16-year-old who previously had sexualized contact with defendant when she was 12 and he was 19.
- Prior communications between defendant and D.K. included sexual text messages and a meeting; defendant was previously convicted related to traveling to meet a minor and grooming; the police had instructed D.K. not to contact him again.
- On March 12, 2015, an account identified as "Eric Johnson" (profile picture of defendant) sent D.K. a Facebook message reading, “Hey. Long time no talk. How have you been?” D.K. was scared, blocked the account, and reported it to her mother and police that day.
- D.K. and her mother K.K. expressed fear for D.K.’s safety; they asked police for increased watch around their residence. Detective Uhlir interviewed defendant, who admitted sending the message and responded angrily, asserting he could contact them because he was off probation.
- At a bench trial the court admitted the Facebook message and friend request; the court found defendant guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced him to 30 days (credit for time served). The court emphasized the limited scope of its ruling based on the prior abusive history between defendant and the minor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sending an ostensibly innocuous Facebook greeting to a prior minor victim can constitute disorderly conduct by "acting in such an unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace." | The State: given the prior sexualized contact, the Facebook contact alarmed and disturbed D.K. and her mother and thus provoked a breach of the peace; context makes the message threatening. | Pence: the message was an innocuous greeting and insufficient as a matter of law to provoke a breach of the peace or support disorderly conduct. | Court: Affirmed conviction. Viewing evidence in light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the communication unreasonable and threatening given prior history and victims’ fear. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237 (discusses sufficiency-of-evidence review and standard of review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- People v. Davis, 82 Ill. 2d 534 (statute protects against mental harassment; inquiry is fact-specific)
- In re B.C., 176 Ill. 2d 536 (disorderly conduct embraces wide variety of conduct disturbing public order)
- People v. Trester, 96 Ill. App. 3d 553 (1981) (reversing disorderly conduct conviction where words were not an immediate threat)
- People v. Bradshaw, 116 Ill. App. 3d 421 (reversing where defendant’s profanity was merely annoying and not threatening)
- People v. Redwood, 335 Ill. App. 3d 189 (2002) (greeting alone generally insufficient absent contextual implied threat)
- People v. Nicholls, 71 Ill. 2d 166 (authorizes assessment of appellate costs)
- People v. Raby, 40 Ill. 2d 392 (mental state for disorderly conduct: knowingly acting unreasonably that would alarm or disturb)