People v. Taylor
2019 IL App (1st) 160173
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Following a 2015 bench trial, Michael Taylor was convicted of aggravated stalking (violating an order of protection) based on causing emotional distress and sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment and $449 in fines/fees.
- Victim Tiffany DeShields testified Taylor repeatedly appeared at her back door and backyard while subject to emergency and plenary orders of protection.
- Taylor threatened to kill DeShields, sent threatening texts including “watch car before it blow up,” and bricks were thrown at her windows; she testified she was terrified for herself and her children.
- The trial court found Taylor guilty under count II (stalking causing emotional distress) and merged related stalking counts into aggravated stalking.
- On appeal Taylor argued the stalking statute (720 ILCS 5/12-7.3) is facially vague and therefore his conviction must be vacated; he also raised, for the first time on appeal, that certain fees were erroneous or should be treated as fines for presentence credit.
- The appellate court affirmed the conviction, rejected the vagueness challenge, but remanded under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 472(e) so Taylor may raise fines/fees claims in the circuit court.
Issues
| Issue | People | Taylor | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether subsection (a) of the stalking statute is unconstitutionally vague/overbroad (criminalizing speech and emotional distress) | Stalking statute is not vague as applied to Taylor’s repeated threats, surveillance, and conduct; statute can be construed to avoid vagueness | Subsection (a) is facially vague and overbroad (criminalizes ordinary expressive conduct and negligent infliction of emotional distress) | Statute not vague as applied; conviction affirmed (court follows Crawford/Relerford reasoning and finds conduct here falls within proscribed true threats and course of conduct) |
| Whether appellate court should address fines/fees raised first on appeal and whether some fees are actually fines requiring presentence credit | People argue such sentencing errors must be raised first in circuit court per Rule 472 | Taylor seeks correction on appeal | Remanded under Ill. S. Ct. R. 472(e) to permit Taylor to file a Rule 472(a) motion in circuit court; appellate court will not decide fees now |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Relerford, 2017 IL 121094 (Illinois Supreme Court) (struck portion of stalking statute criminalizing negligent "communicate to or about"; addressed valid use of negligence as mental state but limited scope for speech-restricting provisions)
- People v. Einoder, 209 Ill. 2d 443 (statute not vague where it clearly applies to defendant’s conduct)
- People v. Sucic, 401 Ill. App. 3d 492 (cyberstalking statute upheld against vagueness challenge; ordinary statutory language and statutory purpose provide sufficient notice)
- People v. Butler, 375 Ill. App. 3d 269 (rejected vagueness challenge based on undefined terms like "emotional distress")