2018 IL App (2d) 160322
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Tita Trajano, an experienced elderly caregiver, substituted for the regular caregiver at the Browns’ residence in May 2009.
- Richard Brown (85) fell out of bed and remained on a hardwood floor for several hours (trial evidence estimated ~4½ hours).
- Defendant attempted to help, fed and gave water to Richard, and made two phone calls (to her employer Roxas and regular caregiver Jensen) but left no voicemails and did not call 911 or other immediate assistance.
- Family members later found Richard with fresh bruises, abrasions, and severe pain; hospital tests diagnosed rhabdomyolysis, attributed to prolonged immobility.
- A jury convicted Trajano of criminal neglect of an elderly person (720 ILCS 5/12-21(a)(2)); she received 18 months conditional discharge and appealed, arguing insufficient proof on knowledge and that she made a good-faith effort.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Trajano) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant knowingly failed to call for assistance when she knew or reasonably should have known it was necessary to maintain Richard’s health | Defendant, an experienced caregiver, left Richard on the floor for hours, made ineffective phone calls, changed accounts about timing, and thus was consciously aware her inaction would likely harm Richard | She checked on him, gave food/water, attempted to lift him, called but could not reach help, and could not physically move the much larger patient — not conscious wrongdoing | Court held evidence (calls, limited help, inconsistent statements, professional experience) supported a reasonable inference of knowledge; verdict affirmed |
| Whether defendant made a “good-faith effort” to provide care (statutory exemption) | Good-faith requires an honest, faithful effort; defendant’s limited calls to unavailable persons and failure to seek immediate help show lack of honest, faithful effort | She honestly did her best given her age/size, concurrent care duties, and lack of immediate assistance | Court held State met its burden to prove absence of good faith; feeding/checking were insufficient when immediate outside help was needed |
| Burden of proof for the good-faith statutory exemption | State concedes it bears the burden and court applies the concession | Defendant argued exemption should preclude liability unless State disproved it | Court applied presumption that State must prove lack of exemption and found State satisfied that burden |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274 (discusses standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Ortiz, 196 Ill. 2d 236 (deference to factfinder credibility determinations)
- People v. Schmalz, 194 Ill. 2d 75 (knowledge is a question of fact)
- People v. Herr, 87 Ill. App. 3d 819 (knowledge may be inferred from circumstances)
- People v. Nash, 282 Ill. App. 3d 982 (distinguishing knowledge from what a person should have known)
- People v. Seiber, 76 Ill. App. 3d 9 (inconsistent statements support consciousness of guilt)
- People v. Manning, 2018 IL 122081 (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- People v. Beachem, 229 Ill. 2d 237 (use of dictionary definitions in statutory construction)
- People v. Nicholls, 71 Ill. 2d 166 (assessment of appellate costs)