Case Information
*1 I LLINOIS O FFICIAL R EPORTS Appellate Court
In re Jerome S.
,
Docket No. 4-10-0862
Argued March 6, 2012
Filed April 23, 2012
Held 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 ( Note: This syllabus in which he struck a school bus monitor was reversed and the cause was constitutes no part of the opinion of the court remanded for the entry of a judgment against respondent on the lesser- but has been prepared included offense of misdemeanor battery, since a school bus monitor is by the Reporter of not a public transportation employee within the meaning of section 12- Decisions for the 4(b)(9) of the Criminal Code. convenience of the
reader. )
Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court оf Champaign County, No. 09-JD-299; the Hon. Heidi N. Ladd, Judge, presiding. Review
Judgment Reversed and remanded with directions.
Counsel on Michael J. Pelletier, Karen Munoz, and Jacqueline L. Bullard (argued), all of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Springfield, for appellant. Appeal
Julia Rietz, State’s Attorney, of Urbana (Patrick Delfino, Robert J. Biderman, and David E. Mannchen (argued), all of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.
Panel JUSTICE COOK delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Presiding Justice Turner and Justice Appleton concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶ 1 Following а 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. Respondent appeals, arguing the State failed to prove him guilty of aggravated battery
under section 12-4(b)(9) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Criminal Code) (720 ILCS 5/12- 4(b)(9) (West 2008)), because a school bus monitor is not a public transportation employee, and, as such, asks this court to reduce his adjudication to the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor battery. We agree with respondent and reverse and remand with directions to enter judgment against respondent on the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor battery. I. BACKGROUND 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. 720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(9), (e)(1) (West 2008). The charge stemmed from an October 2009 incident in which respondent struck Linda Little, a school bus monitor, in the arms while on a school bus that was transporting respondent and 11 other special educаtion children to Circle Academy, a therapeutic day school for children with mental health problems operated by Cunningham Children’s Home. The charge was elevated to the level of aggravated battery based on the allegation that Little was an “employeе of *** a transportation facility engaged in the business of transporting the public for hire, and *** was, at that time, performing in her capacity as an employee of [First Student].” See 720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(9) (West 2008). 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 *3 business of transporting the public for hire” and Little was acting as a bus monitor and, thus, performing in her capacity as an employee of First Student at the time of the incident. As a result, the court found respondent guilty of aggravated battery. At the September 2010 sentencing hearing, the court adjudicated respondent delinquent and sentenced him to 15 months’ probation.
¶ 6 This appeal followed.
¶ 7 II. ANALYSIS 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 section 12-4(b)(9) of the Criminal Code (720 ILCS 5/12-
4(b)(9) (West 2008)). Respondent concedes, however, that a reasonable trier of fact could
conclude he committed the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3
(West 2008)) and thus requests that this court reduce his adjudication to misdemeanor
battery. The State maintains that respondent was properly adjudicated delinquent uрon the
commission of aggravated battery because Little was performing in her capacity as a public
transportation employee at the time of the incident. We agree with respondent.
Respondent’s argument rests on his assertion that a school bus monitor is nоt a public
transportation employee within the meaning of the aggravated-battery statute (720 ILCS
5/12-4(b)(9) (West 2008)). This is a question of statutory interpretation, which we review
de
novo
.
People v. Whitney
,
the legislature.
People v. Davis
,
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, operator, 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 cаpacity or then using such public transportation as a passenger or using any *4 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). 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 section 12-4(b)(9) applies to First Student by its express terms, because First Student is a school bus company hired by the school district to provide transportation for students to and from school and, thus, this contractual relationship falls within the statutory definition of a “transportation facility or system engaged in the business of transportation of the public for hire.” Further, the State argues that a schoоl bus is a public vehicle because its purpose is to transport students–a specific class of passengers who are members of the public. The aggravated-battery statute does not specifically define “transportation of the public
for hire” or “public transрortation.” “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
,
“Long-standing authority in Illinois has held that a common carrier is ‘one 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 ‘undertakеs for hire to carry all persons indifferently who may apply for passage 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 servеs all of the public alike. [Citations.]
A private carrier, by contrast, undertakes 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 cаrrier 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.
*5
App. 3d at 211,
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 helpful 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 Internatiоnal 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 transport 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 grouр of students, i.e. , special education children with mental health problems–which it has contracted to pick up and is not obligated to serve every person who may apply. To further bolster his argument, respondent next points out that the legislature
distinguishes between the transpоrtation of school children and “public” transportation in a
variety of 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 сonduct local or interurban transportation of passengers when such 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.” 625 ILCS 5/1-182(b) (West 2008); see also
625 ILCS 5/1-209.3 (West Supp. 2011) (defining “transit bus” as “[a] bus engagеd in public
transportation”). Second, transportation-related statutes similarly restrict the definition of
“public transportation” to “transportation or conveyance of persons by means available to the
general public
including groups of the
general public
with special needs.” (Emphases
added.) 30 ILCS 740/4-1.3, 2-2.05 (West 2008); see also 30 ILCS 740/3-1.05 (West 2008).
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 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.2(a)(16)
(West 2008) (“the defendant committed an offense *** on any conveyance owned, leased,
or contracted by a school to transport students to or from school or a school related activity”),
with 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.2(a)(25) (West Supp. 2009) (“the defendant committed the offense
while the defendant or the victim was in a train, bus, or other vehicle used for public
transportation”). Also, in the sentence-enhancement provisions of the unlawful use of
weapons statute, the legislature distinguishes between school and рublic buses by separately
listing vehicles used “to transport students to or from school or a school related activity” and
vehicles which are “owned, leased, or contracted by a public transportation agency.” 720
ILCS 5/24-1(c)(1) (West 2010). “ ‘[P]ublic transportation agency’ ” is defined as “a public
*6
or private agency that provides for the transportation or conveyance of persons by means
available to the
general public
.” (Emphasis added.) 720 ILCS 5/24-1(c)(5) (West 2010).
“ ‘[P]ublic transportation facility’ ” is defined as “a terminal or other place where one may
obtain рublic transportation.” 720 ILCS 5/24-1(c)(5) (West 2010). This distinction is further
evidence that the legislature believes “school buses” are not included in the definition of
“public transportation” because transportation by a school bus is not available to the
general
public
. To read this provision to the contrary wоuld render “school buses” superfluous.
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
,