People v. Ball, 46384

• Citation: 317 N.E.2d 54,58 Ill.2d 36
• Decision Date: 17 September 1974
• Docket Number: No. 46384,46384
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. John BALL, Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

Page 54

317 N.E.2d 54

58 Ill.2d 36

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. John BALL, Appellee.

No. 46384.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Sept. 17, 1974.

Robert H. Rice, State's Atty., Belleville, for the People.

Michael B. Constance, of Brady, Donovan & Hatch, Belleville, for appellee.

UNDERWOOD, Chief Justice.

John Ball, a school teacher, was found guilty in a bench trial of battery involving one of his students in violation of section 12--3 of the Criminal Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 12--3) and was fined $100 and costs. On appeal, the Appellate Court, Fifth District, reversed and remanded for further proceedings (15 Ill.App.3d 143, 303 N.E.2d 516), and we have allowed leave to appeal.

The facts are not in dispute. The prosecuting witness, age 11, was a student in defendant's sixth-grade class at the Henry Robb School in Belleville. On the day of the incident in question, the sixth-grade class was on the playground practicing unison exercises for the school's annual 'Field Day' performance. During the practice session, the boy disrupted the class by doing the calisthenics in a direction opposite that of the rest of the class. Defendant sent him to a nearby bench and told him to remain there until he was given permission to get up. Contrary to defendant's instructions, the boy left the bench to talk to a friend of his who was walking by. Defendant determined that disciplinary action was in order, and he took the boy into the school building where he asked another teacher to step outside her classroom into the hallway to be an observer to the punishment about to be rendered. After instructing the boy to bend over with his hands on his knees, defendant struck him on the buttocks 10 times with a wooden paddle approximately 3 inches wide, 20 inches long and 1/4 inch thick. It is undisputed that the student had been disciplined on several prior occasions for misconduct, and that defendant had previously paddled him but, apparently, to a lesser degree. Nor is it disputed that while administering the punishment, defendant was calm, rational and not angry. Defendant thereafter took the boy into his vacant classroom where he told him that he had been disciplined for his own best interests.

When school was dismissed a short time later, the boy went directly home and told his parents about the paddling he had received. His father took him to the police station where the incident was reported. Thereafter they went to the home of their family doctor who, not having medical supplies at home, sent the boy to a hospital emergency room for further treatment. The examaining doctor at the hospital testified that it was one of the most severe paddling cases he had ever observed. The injured area, which was hot to touch, was treated like a burn with medicated ointments and bandages. After several weeks the area healed without complications. The family physician testified that he ordered tranquilizers for the boy, who was emotionally distraught from the paddling. His mother also stated that the boy was very upset immediately after the incident and continued to become so whenever he saw the defendant. As a consequence of this incident the boy was transferred to a sixth-grade class in another school.

The offense of battery is defined in section 12--3 of the Criminal Code in the following language: 'A person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means, (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.' (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 12--3(a).) The primary question before the trial court was whether the corporal punishment administered by defendant was 'without legal justification' within the meaning of the foregoing statutory provision. In finding the defendant guilty, the trial judge stated that while a teacher may administer 'just and reasonable punishment--corporal punishment included'--in maintaining discipline in his classroom, the defendant in this case inflicted corporal punishment more severe than the boy's parents would have had a right to administer--it was more than just a spanking, it was in fact a beating. The court further indicated that it did not intend to take the right of discipline away from a teacher who stands In loco parentis but rather to insure that such discipline is 'just and reasonable.' In reversing the decision of the trial court, the appellate court held that the trial court erred in applying a test of 'reasonableness' to the discipline administered by the defendant. Relying on previous appellate court decisions which will be referred to hereafter, the appellate court was of the opinion that the proper question should have been 'whether the teacher was actuated by malice, or inflicted the punishment wantonly.' The cause was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of...