2019 IL App (1st) 161246
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background:
- Defendant Ronald Smith lived with the victim (S.N.) after renewing an online relationship; relationship had been ended by S.N. months earlier.
- On April 8, 2015, Smith entered S.N.’s bedroom twice; on both occasions he carried a knife and a roll of duct tape, threatened to hurt her, restrained her, and forced oral contact with his penis.
- S.N. testified that Smith brandished the knife, told her he would hurt her, taped/attempted to tape her wrists, and forced his penis into her mouth on two occasions; she remained fearful after he fell asleep.
- Smith testified pro se, admitting the sexual acts but claiming they were consensual and that he did not hold the knife while penetrating S.N. (he said he put the knife in his pocket).
- Jury convicted Smith of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault; the trial court sentenced him to consecutive 25-year terms (50 years total).
- On appeal Smith challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence that he “displayed” a knife "during the commission" of the offense and (2) the trial court’s failure to sua sponte give a lesser-included (criminal sexual assault) instruction.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the aggravated-sexual-assault aggravator requires the weapon to be displayed at the precise moment of sexual penetration | The State: "during the commission of the offense" covers the period in which the offender used or threatened force, so displaying a knife while restraining or threatening suffices | Smith: The knife must be displayed at the exact moment of sexual penetration to elevate the offense | Court: Statute includes the period when force/threat of force is used; knife display need not coincide exactly with contact of penetration — evidence was sufficient |
| Whether the trial court erred by not sua sponte giving a lesser-included instruction (criminal sexual assault) | State: No error—the defendant waived the instruction and invited the all-or-nothing approach | Smith: Trial court should have tendered the lesser instruction sua sponte despite his trial statements | Court: Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the lesser-included instruction; waiver/invited error precludes plain-error review; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ward, 215 Ill. 2d 317 (statutory interpretation can be necessary to resolve sufficiency questions)
- People v. Glisson, 202 Ill. 2d 499 (use statutory language and plain meaning to determine legislative intent)
- People v. Brocksmith, 162 Ill. 2d 224 (defendant has a right to request lesser-included instructions)
- People v. Phipps, 238 Ill. 2d 54 (forfeiture defined as failure to timely assert a right)
- People v. Patrick, 233 Ill. 2d 62 (invited error/waiver bars plain-error review of an action the defendant requested)
- People v. Carter, 208 Ill. 2d 309 (affirmative refusal of a lesser-included instruction precludes later challenge)
- Middleton v. McNeil, 541 U.S. 433 (due process requires jury instructions that give effect to the State’s burden to prove each element)