In re Jerome S.
(Note: This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.)
The trial court‘s adjudication of respondent as a delinquent based on the finding that he was guilty of aggravated battery arising from an incident in which he struck a school bus monitor was reversed and the cause was remanded for the entry of a judgment against respondent on the lеsser-included offense of misdemeanor battery, since a school bus monitor is not a public transportation employee within the meaning of
¶ 1 Following a July 2010 bench trial, respondent, Jerome S., was found guilty of aggravated battery. In September 2010, the trial court adjudicated respondent delinquent, declared him a ward of the court, and sentenced him to 15 months’ probation.
¶ 2 Respondent appeals, arguing the State failed to prove him guilty of aggravated battery under
I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 In December 2009, the State filed a petition for adjudication of delinquency and wardship alleging respondent committed the offense of aggravated battery, a Class 3 felony.
¶ 5 At the close of respondent‘s July 2010 bench trial, the trial court specifically noted that Little‘s uncontradicted testimony established that First Student (previously Laidlow Transportation) was a “public transportation or a transportation facility engaged in the
¶ 6 This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
¶ 8 Respondent contends that the State failed to prove him guilty of aggravated battery beyond a reasonable doubt because a school bus monitor is not a public transportation employee within the meaning of
¶ 9 Respondent‘s argument rests on his assertion that a school bus monitor is not a public transportation employee within the meaning of the aggravated-battery statute (
¶ 10 The primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. People v. Davis, 199 Ill. 2d 130, 135, 766 N.E.2d 641, 644 (2002). The legislature‘s intent is best gleaned from the plain language of the statute. People v. Carter, 213 Ill. 2d 295, 301, 821 N.E.2d 233, 237 (2004). The statute should be considered in its entirety in light of its subject matter and the legislature‘s objective in enacting it. Davis, 199 Ill. 2d at 135, 766 N.E.2d at 644. Additionally, statutes must be construed in such a way that no term or phrase is rendered meaningless or superfluous. See, e.g., Innovative Modular Solutions v. Hazel Crest School District 152.5, 2012 IL 112052, ¶ 22, 2012 WL 312251, at *4. In interpreting the plain meaning, dictionary definitions can provide useful guidance. People v. Dabbs, 239 Ill. 2d 277, 288, 940 N.E.2d 1088, 1095 (2010). Any ambiguities in a penal statute must be construed in favor of the accused. In re Rodney S., 402 Ill. App. 3d 272, 286, 932 N.E.2d 588, 601 (2010).
¶ 11 The statute under which respondent was adjudicated delinquent provides, in relevant part, as follows:
“(b) In committing a battery, a person commits aggravated battery if he or she:
* * *
(9) Knows the individual harmed to be the driver, oрerator, employee or passenger of any transportation facility or system engaged in the business of transportation of the public for hire and the individual assaulted is then performing in such capacity or then using such public transportation as a passenger or using any
area of any description designated by the transportation facility or system as a vehicle boarding, departure, or transfer location[.]” (Emphases added.) 720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(9) (West 2008) .
¶ 12 Specifically, respondent asserts that a private company that transports students to a private school is not “engaged in the business of transportation of the public for hire” or “public transportation.” On the contrary, the State contends
¶ 13 The aggravated-battery statute does not specifically define “transportation of the public for hire” or “public transportation.” “When a statutory term is not expressly defined, it is appropriate to denote its meaning through its ordinary and popularly understood definition.” People v. Baskerville, 2012 IL 111056, ¶ 19, 2012 WL 525462, at *4 (citing People v. Beachem, 229 Ill. 2d 237, 244-45, 890 N.E.2d 515, 520 (2008)). “Public” is defined in relevant part, as “of, relating to, or affecting the people as an organized community“; “accessible to or shared by all members of the community“; and “the people as a whole.” Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary 1836 (1981). Further, “public transportation” is defined as “buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.” The New Oxford American Dictionary 1369 (2d ed. 2005). Applying the dictionary definitions of “public” and “public transportation,” it is clear that a school bus is not “public” because transportation by school bus is available only to a select group of individuals, not the “people as a whole.”
¶ 14 To further bolster his сlaim that a school bus is not involved in transporting the public for hire, respondent cites two cases that dealt with distinctions between “common carriers” and “private carriers.” Respondent quotes this court‘s language in Green v. Carlinville Community Unit School District No. 1, 381 Ill. App. 3d 207, 887 N.E.2d 451 (2008), where we stated as follows:
“Long-standing authority in Illinois has held that a common carrier is ‘оne who undertakes for the public to transport from place to place such persons or the goods of such as choose to employ him for hire.’ [Citations.] A common carrier ‘undertakes for hire to carry all persons indifferently who may apply for passаge so long as there is room and there is no legal excuse for refusal.’ [Citations.] The definitive test to be employed to determine if a carrier is a common carrier is whether the carrier serves all of the public alike. [Citations.]
A private carrier, by contrast, undertаkes by special agreement, in a particular instance only, to transport persons or property from one place to another either gratuitously or for hire. [Citation.] A private carrier makes no public profession to carry all who apply for carriage, transports only by special agreement, and is not bound to serve every person who may apply.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Green, 381 Ill. App. 3d at 211, 887 N.E.2d at 454-55 (quoting Doe v. Rockdale School District No. 84, 287 Ill. App. 3d 791, 793-94, 679 N.E.2d 771, 773 (1997)).
¶ 15 Both Green and Doe held that a school bus was a “private carrier” rather than a “common carrier” for purposes of liability or immunity on the part of the school district. Here, the term “common carrier” is not used in the aggravated-battery statute. Instead, we must determine only whether a school bus is “engaged in the business of transportation of the public for hire” and is considered “public transportation.” Nonetheless, we find Green and Doe hеlpful to our analysis of whether a school bus is a “public vehicle” as the State posits. A “public vehicle” is defined as “[a] vehicle seeking employment from the general public.” Webster‘s New International Dictionary 2005 (2d ed. 1956). The definition of “public vehicle” is similar to a “common carrier” because they both serve all of the public alike. Unlike a common carrier or a public vehicle, a school bus serves only students, a distinct group of individuals, generally for the purpose of transporting students to and from school. Here, First Student was hired to transрort special education children to and from Circle Academy, a therapeutic day school for children with mental health problems. First Student transports only those students–and only a select group of students, i.e., special education children with mental health problems–whiсh it has contracted to pick up and is not obligated to serve every person who may apply.
¶ 16 To further bolster his argument, respondent next points out that the legislature distinguishes between the transportation of school children and “public” transportation in a variety оf contexts. First, the Illinois Vehicle Code‘s definition of “school bus” expressly excludes buses that are “operated by a public utility, municipal corporation or common carrier authorized to conduct local or interurban transportation of passengers when suсh bus is not traveling a specific school bus route but is[ ] [o]n a regularly scheduled route for the transportation of other fare paying passengers.”
¶ 17 Third, evidence that the legislature does not consider school buses to be public transportation is also found in criminal statutes. The list of aggravating sentencing factors in the Unified Code of Corrections distinguishes between “public transportation” and “school buses” by placing them in two separate subsections. Compare
¶ 18 Last, respondent asserts that “a broader reading of the phrases ‘transportation of the public for hire’ and ‘public transportation’ would be impermissible under the rule of lenity.” The rule of lenity provides that ambiguities in criminal statutes should be resolved in a defendant‘s favor, so long as the rule is not “stretched so far as to defeat the legislature‘s intent.” People v. Fields, 383 Ill. App. 3d 920, 922, 891 N.E.2d 990, 992 (2008). Because we have already found evidence that the legislature has made numerous distinctions bеtween “school buses” and “public transportation,” we need not conduct a rule of lenity analysis.
III. CONCLUSION
¶ 20 For the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court‘s judgment with regard to the aggravated-battery conviction and remand with directions to enter judgment against respondent on the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor battery.
¶ 21 Reversed and remanded with directions.