People v. Reed, 062916 ILCA2, 2-14-0610
|Opinion Judge:||ZENOFF JUSTICE.|
|Party Name:||THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATHAN REED, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Judge Panel:||ZENOFF JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hutchinson and Jorgensen concurred in the judgment.|
|Case Date:||June 29, 2016|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Illinois|
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County. No. 13-CF-2208, Honorable Christopher R. Stride, Judge, Presiding.
ZENOFF JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hutchinson and Jorgensen concurred in the judgment.
¶ 1 Held: (1) The State proved defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of public indecency (lewd exposure); although defendant's penis was covered by his shirt, he nevertheless made it clearly identifiable to the victim and thus "exposed" it to her; (2) as the parties agreed, the trial court erred in ruling on a motion for summary judgment to determine defendant was fit; we remanded for a retrospective fitness hearing, at which, given defendant's jury demand, defendant would be entitled to a jury.
¶ 2 Following a jury trial, defendant, Nathan M. Reed, was convicted of public indecency (720 ILCS 5/11-30(a)(2) (West 2012)) and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. He appeals, contending that (1) he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial court erred when, after finding a bona fide doubt of defendant's fitness for trial, it granted summary judgment on the issue of fitness without making an independent decision and without honoring defendant's demand for a jury; and (3) he was erroneously ordered to pay a DNA analysis fee when he had given a DNA sample in connection with a previous conviction. We vacate the order granting summary judgment on the issue of fitness and remand the cause with directions.
¶ 3 Defendant was charged with public indecency based on having committed "an act of lewd exposure of his body." He initially represented himself. At a November 5, 2013, hearing, the trial court stated that, based on defendant's filings and his demeanor in court, it found a bona fide doubt of defendant's fitness. The court appointed the public defender to represent defendant, ordered a fitness examination, and continued the cause for status on defendant's fitness. Defendant objected.
¶ 4 A fitness evaluation report, prepared by Dr. Anthony Latham, concluded that defendant "has a factual and rational understanding of the nature and purpose of the proceedings and the capacity to assist an attorney in the preparation of a defense. Therefore, it is recommended that the court find [defendant] fit to enter a plea or to stand trial."
¶ 5 On November 25, 2013, the public defender stated that defendant was requesting a fitness hearing before a jury, but asked for a continuance to discuss the evaluation with defendant. On defendant's demand, the issue of his fitness was set for a jury hearing on February 18, 2014.
¶ 6 On that date, the public defender filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding defendant's fitness to stand trial and asking that defendant be found fit. Defendant objected to the motion and demanded a jury be impaneled to determine his fitness. The public defender responded, "So while I believe [defendant] absolutely has a right to have a jury determine his fitness if we proceed to a hearing, I think this motion again would be dispositive of that, and I think it is not only my right but my duty to file this motion and ask the Court to go forward on it."
¶ 7 The prosecutor concurred with the public defender's motion. The trial court granted the motion over defendant's objection. The court stated as follows: "I have reviewed once again the fitness evaluation. And I agree that there is no factual issue that is in dispute. That the report from Dr. Latham after an interview with [defendant] finds that he is fit to stand trial and/or to plead. The State would be putting on Dr. Latham to give that very opinion as well as you, [defense counsel], would be putting on Dr. Latham to give that opinion.
So since there is no factual issue, no one is arguing that [defendant] is unfit, I find [sic] and grant your motion for summary judgment; that there is no need for a trial or hearing with regard to the issue of fitness."
¶ 8 The court again allowed defendant to represent himself, appointing the public defender as standby counsel. The case was then set for jury trial.
¶ 9 At trial, Alice Johnson Bisanz testified that on August 6, 2013, she was walking in Century Park in Vernon Hills, where she walked every morning. As she approached a bench, she saw a man she did not recognize, whom she later identified as defendant. He was wearing khaki pants, a white t-shirt, and a colored shirt open in the front. As she passed the bench, the man looked at her and said hello. He said hello in a drawn-out manner that sounded "creepy." Defendant then looked down, which drew her gaze downward. She could make out his erect penis underneath the white shirt. Although the shirt completely covered his penis, she could easily identify it because the shirt was pulled "so tight" over it. His right hand was making a slight up-and-down movement on his penis. She reiterated that his penis was covered by his shirt, but she could clearly make out the head.
¶ 10 Bisanz texted her husband and son to tell them what she had seen, then flagged down a police officer. Her husband and son testified that they...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP