People v. Wrencher

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2009 » People v. Wrencher

People v. Wrencher

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-08-0619 Rel

Case Date: 09/11/2009

Preview:NO. 4-08-0619

Filed: 9-11-09

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAYMOND WRENCHER, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from Circuit Court of Champaign County No. 07CF954 Honorable Heidi Ladd, Judge Presiding.

OPINION MODIFIED ON DENIAL OF REHEARING JUSTICE APPLETON delivered the opinion of the court: A jury found defendant, Raymond Wrencher, guilty of two counts of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(18) (West Supp. 2007)). The trial court sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment for each count, ordering that the terms run consecutively. Defendant appeals on two grounds: (1) the trial court violated Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 8 (April 11, 2007), R. 431(b), eff. May 1, 2007) during voir dire by failing to adequately question the potential jurors on the four principles in Rule 431(b), and (2) the State failed to present sufficient evidence that defendant's act of spitting on a police officer was "physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature" (720 ILCS 5/12-3(a) (West 2006)). We are issuing this modified decision on denial of defendant's petition for rehearing. Our basic holdings are the same. We hold that defendant has procedurally forfeited his argument that the trial court violated Rule 431(b) and that because the

violation does not amount to plain error, the forfeiture must be honored. Nevertheless, in this modified decision, we have expanded our discussion of this issue by taking account of the supreme court's recent decision in People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173, 917 N.E.2d 401 (2009), which was published after the parties filed their briefs in this appeal. As for defendant's alternative argument, we still find sufficient evidence that his act of spitting on the police officer was insulting or provoking. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment. I. BACKGROUND A. The Indictment A grand jury returned an indictment charging defendant with two counts of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(18) (West Supp. 2007)). One count alleged that on June 5, 2007, he spat blood on a Champaign police officer, Mark Briggs. The other count alleged that on the same date, he dug his fingernails into the hand of another Champaign police officer, Gregory Manzana. B. Voir Dire The trial occurred in June 2008. At the beginning of voir dire, the trial court addressed the entire venire as follows: "The defendant is presumed to be innocent, and this presumption remains with him throughout the case[] and is not overcome unless[,] from all the evidence, you are convinced[,] beyond a reasonable doubt[,] that the defendant is guilty. Before the defendant can be convicted, the State must prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is -2-

on the State, and that burden never shifts. The defendant is not required to present evidence, and he is not required to prove his innocence. The defendant is not required to testify. If the defendant does not testify, the fact that he did not testify may not be considered by you in any way." During its questioning of the first panel, the trial court again recited the principles in Rule 431(b) (Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 8 (April 11, 2007), R. 431(b), eff. May 1, 2007). The court stated: "With regard[] to our four potential jurors, I'm going to go over again the principles of law you must follow[,] and then I will inquire individually about those. The defendant is presumed innocent of the charges against him. Before the defendant can be convicted, the State must prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He is not required to offer any evidence or testify in his own behalf, and if he elects not to testify, the fact that he did not testify may not be held against him in any way." The court then asked the four persons in the first panel--Karen Ray, Nathan Thompson, Gail Carlson, and Brian Daube

Download People v. Wrencher.pdf