People v. Hillier

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 3rd District Appellate » 2009 » People v. Hillier

People v. Hillier

State: Illinois

Court: 3rd District Appellate

Docket No: 3-07-0717 Rel

Case Date: 06/16/2009

Preview:No. 3-07-0717 _________________________________________________________________ Filed June 16, 2009 Correction IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the Ninth Judicial Circuit ) Knox County, Illinois Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 06-CF-367 ) HOWARD J. HILLIER, ) Honorable ) James B. Stewart Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding _________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the opinion of the court: _________________________________________________________________ Defendant, Howard Hillier, was charged with predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (720 ILCS 5/12-14.1(a)(1) (2006)). trial court found defendant guilty. court ordered defendant to The

Before sentencing, the trial in a sex offender

participate

evaluation. prison

The trial court sentenced defendant to 20 years in in part, on the results of the sex offender

based,

evaluation.

On appeal, defendant asks that (1) his conviction be

reversed because the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, and (2) his sentence be vacated because the trial court violated Illinois law and his fifth amendment rights by compelling him to submit to a sex offender evaluation. We affirm.

On June 28, 2006, defendant was charged by information with predatory criminal sexual assault of a child "in that from on or

about February 15, 1998, to February 14, 2000, the said defendant, who was 17 years or older, committed an act of sexual penetration with J.L.J., who was under 13 years of age when the act was committed, in that the defendant placed his finger in the vagina of J.L.J. in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-14.1(a)(1)." A bench trial was held on December 19 and 20, 2006. At

defendant's trial, J.L.J. testified that she was born in 1991. Defendant was her stepfather and "sexually abused" her for two years from approximately 1998 to 2000. was seven or eight years old. The abuse began when J.L.J.

According to J.L.J., defendant "put The prosecutor

his hands down my pants and he fondled my breasts."

asked J.L.J. the following questions and received the following responses from J.L.J.: "Q. Did he ever do anything else to you? Did he

touch you in any way or place his finger anywhere? A. Q. A. Yes. Where did he place his finger? My vagina." that used to be married to J.L.J.'s

Defendant testified mother.

He denied ever "placing [his] finger inside J.L.J.'s

vagina" or "fondling her breasts." The trial court ruled that "the State proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt" and found defendant guilty of predatory

criminal sexual assault of a child.

The trial court directed the

probation office to prepare a presentence investigation. The State then filed a motion for a sex offender evaluation. 2

The trial court granted the motion and entered an order requiring defendant to undergo a sex offender evaluation. In its order, the

court stated: "That it was the intention of the Court, at the time the Defendant was found guilty of the offense in the above

captioned case, to order a sex offender evaluation as well as a pre-sentence investigation." Defendant underwent a sex offender evaluation, which was conducted by a clinical social worker at a mental health facility. During the evaluation, defendant denied sexually abusing J.L.J. As part of the evaluation, the social worker assessed defendant's risk to reoffend using STATIC 99, "an instrument designed to assist in the prediction of sexual and violent recidivism for sexual offenders." The results of that assessment were as follows:

"Mr. Hillier scored a 6 on this risk assessment. Individuals with these characteristics, on average

sexually reoffend at 39% over five years, 45% over 10 years and 52% over 15 years. The rate for any violent

recidivism (including sexual) for individuals with these characteristics is, on average, 44% over 5 years, 51% over 10 years and 59% over 15 years. Based on the STATIC 99 score this places Mr. Hillier in the high category or between the top 12% risk category relative to other male sex offenders." At defendant's sentencing hearing, the trial court took into consideration the results of defendant's sex offender evaluation. The court explained: "This might be an entirely different situation 3

had that assessment come back and said that you are not at risk of re-offending but this, in fact, indicated that you were a higher risk of re-offending because of everything contained within that statement." prison. I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE The trial court sentenced defendant to 20 years in

Defendant argues that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child because J.L.J. never testified that he placed his finger inside her vagina. A defendant is guilty of predatory criminal assault of a child if he "was 17 years of age or over and commits an act of sexual penetration with a victim who was under 13 years of age when the act was committed." 720 ILCS 5/12-14.1(a)(1) (West 2006).

"'Sexual penetration' means * * * any intrusion, however slight, of any part of the body of one person * * * into the sex organ or anus of another person." defendant challenges 720 ILCS 5/12-12(f) (West 2006). the sufficiency of the When a the

evidence,

appropriate standard of review is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Bell, 234 Ill. App. Whether sexual

3d 631, 635-36, 600 N.E.2d 902, 906 (1992).

penetration occurred is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact. People v. Herring, 324 Ill. App. 3d 458, 464, 754

N.E.2d 385, 390 (2001); Bell, 234 Ill. App.3d at 636, 600 N.E.2d at 4

906. It is the of function the of the the trier of fact to determine to be given their

credibility

witnesses,

weight

testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Herring, 324 Ill. App. 3d at 464, 754 N.E.2d at 390. The trier of

fact is entitled to draw all reasonable inferences from both circumstantial and direct evidence, including an inference of penetration. Herring, 324 Ill. App. 3d at 465, 754 N.E.2d at 391.

A jury may reasonably infer that an act of penetration occurred based on testimony that the defendant "rubbed," "felt" or "handled" the victim's vagina. N.E.2d at 906-07. See Bell, 234 Ill. App. 3d at 636-67, 600

Such an inference is unreasonable only if the See Bell, 234 Ill. App.

victim denies that penetration occurred. 3d at 637, 600 N.E.2d at 907.

Here, there was sufficient evidence presented to establish that defendant sexually penetrated J.L.J. When J.L.J. was asked

where defendant "placed his finger," she responded, "my vagina." J.L.J. never denied that defendant penetrated her. Based on

J.L.J.'s statement, the trial court could have reasonably inferred that defendant penetrated J.L.J.'s vagina with his finger. Bell, 234 Ill. App. 3d at 636-67, 600 N.E.2d at 906-07. See Thus,

defendant was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of predatory criminal sexual assault of J.L.J.. II. STATUTORY AND FIFTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS

Defendant also argues that his sentence should be vacated because the trial court violated state law, as well as his fifth 5

amendment rights, when it ordered him to participate in a sex offender evaluation. A. Statutory Claim

In Illinois, a presentence report must be completed in all felony cases, which defendant. sets forth certain information about the When a felony sex

See 730 ILCS 5/5-3-2 (West 2006).

offender is being considered for probation, he is required to submit to a sex offender evaluation as part of the presentence investigation. (West 2006). 20 ILCS 4026/16 (West 2006); 730 ILCS 5/5-3-2(b-5)

A sex offender evaluation must include an assessment

of the defendant's risk of re-offending, which is to be evaluated by a "validated risk instrument that is generally accepted by sex offender evaluators," such as "STATIC 99."

Download People v. Hillier.pdf