People v. Bell
| Docket Number | 4-21-0452 |
| Decision Date | 14 June 2022 |
| Citation | 2022 IL App (4th) 210452 U |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRYANT D. BELL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macon County No. 20CF1560 Honorable Dana Rhoades, Judge Presiding.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The State's evidence was sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of both aggravated battery and domestic battery.
¶ 2 Following a bench trial, the trial court found defendant Bryant D. Bell, guilty of one count of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(d)(2) (West 2018)) and two counts of domestic battery (id. § 12-3.2(a)(1), (a)(2)) and sentenced him to 18 months' probation. Defendant appeals, arguing the State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.
¶ 4 In December 2020, the State charged defendant with multiple battery-related offenses arising out of a physical altercation he had with the victim, Carly Haines, on December 17, 2020. In count I, the State charged defendant with aggravated domestic battery (id. § 12-3.3(a- 5)), alleging he intentionally strangled Haines, who was a family or household member, by applying pressure to her neck and "impeding her normal breathing or the circulation of her blood." In count II, it charged defendant with aggravated battery (id. § 12-3.05(d)(2)), alleging he caused bodily harm to Haines by grabbing and pushing her while knowing she was pregnant. In counts III and IV, the State charged defendant with domestic battery (id. § 12-3.2(a)(1), (a)(2)), alleging he caused bodily harm to (count III), or made physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with (count IV), Haines, a family or household member, by grabbing her by the head and pushing her.
¶ 5 In May 2021, the trial court conducted defendant's bench trial. The State presented testimony from two witnesses-Canzetta Jackson, an eyewitness to the altercation between defendant and Haines, and Drake Lambdin, a deputy with the Macon County Sheriff's Office. Jackson testified she worked with Haines at a business called Fuyao Glass. On December 17, 2020, she and Haines were leaving work when she observed defendant approach Haines. Jackson testified defendant was initially "being nice," saying to Haines:" 'Hey, sweetheart, how was your day?'" However, defendant then "grabbed" and "tussled" with Haines and called her "embarrassing 'B' words." Specifically, at one point, defendant stated to Haines:" 'You're embarrassing us, b***.'
¶ 6 On examination by the State, Jackson further testified as follows:
¶ 7 During Jackson's testimony, the State presented a video recording from a security camera, which Jackson stated partially captured the incident between Haines and defendant. The video was admitted into evidence and played for the trial court.
¶ 8 Jackson further testified that during the altercation between defendant and Haines, Jackson told defendant to "get [his] hands off of [Haines] because she's pregnant." She also asked defendant:" " Jackson stated she last saw Haines in March 2021. At that time, Haines was noticeably pregnant.
¶ 9 On cross-examination, Jackson denied that Haines was "pushing on" defendant when he reached out to her. Instead, she stated defendant was "trying to swing [Haines] when he grabbed her." Jackson testified that after the physical altercation between defendant and Haines, they left together. She agreed "it was fair to say that *** Haines was angry at [defendant] that evening."
¶ 10 Lambdin testified he was assigned to investigate the December 17 incident. As part of his investigation, he went to Fuyao Glass and spoke with an employee who showed him a video recording of "the altercation that occurred." Additionally, he spoke with Haines, whom he observed with a "bruise" or "redness to the left cheek." Lambdin stated the injury appeared "to be fresh" and consistent with the altercation he observed on the video recording.
¶ 11 Lambdin testified he also spoke with defendant during his investigation. Defendant indicated he and Haines resided together and that he went to Fuyao Glass to pick Haines up from work. He met Haines at the door, put his arm around her, and "pulled [her] close to him." Lambdin stated defendant denied putting his hand close to Haines's throat but asserted he did pull her close "by her neck." Defendant admitted that he and Haines got "into an altercation," reporting that when he was "pulling [her] close," she was "pulling away." He further acknowledged that there had been an "issue in his mind" regarding himself and Haines. He indicated to Lambdin that he was upset because Haines was pregnant and he "read messages" that questioned whether he was the father of Haines's unborn child. According to Lambdin, defendant believed the child was his.
¶ 12 On cross-examination, Lambdin testified that he was advised the redness or bruise on Haines's cheek "occurred that night." He stated he had not received specific "training to date marks or bruises." He acknowledged he could not tell by looking how old the redness or bruise was and, based on just his observations, he did not know if it occurred as a result of the incident at issue. On redirect examination, Lambdin testified he could tell the difference between a bruise or a scrape that was fresh versus one that was a few days old. He believed the injury he observed on Haines's cheek "was consistent with occurring very recently."
¶ 13 Defendant testified on his own behalf. He stated that during the December 17 incident, he grabbed Haines's bag and put his arm around her. However, Haines "ducked from up under [him]" and "moved back." Defendant stated he then picked Haines's bag up off the ground and the two then left in his truck. He denied that he strangled or hit Haines, or that he caused bruising to her face.
¶ 14 On cross-examination, defendant further denied that he called Haines "a b***." He maintained the only words between the two of them were"' [l]et's go.'" Defendant also denied that he and Haines were in a dating relationship at the time of the incident. When asked whether Haines was pregnant, the following colloquy occurred:
¶ 15 Defendant denied that he was unhappy or upset about the messages suggesting Haines "was sleeping with someone else." He maintained that when he put his arm around Haines outside Fuyao Glass, she pushed him away because "[s]he was upset that [he] found out about these messages." Defendant asserted that after Haines pushed him, he immediately let her go, picked up her bag, and walked to his vehicle.
¶ 16 The trial court found defendant not guilty of aggravated domestic battery as charged in count I but guilty of aggravated battery and domestic battery as charged in counts II, III, and IV. In June 2021, defendant filed a posttrial motion arguing the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to sustain the court's findings of guilt. In July 2021, the court denied defendant's motion and sentenced him to 18 months' probation.
¶ 17 This appeal followed.
¶ 19 On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the State's evidence against him. He contends the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt essential elements of the charged offenses in counts II, III, and IV, including that (1) Haines was pregnant at the time of the December 17 incident and he knew about her pregnancy, (2) he caused Haines bodily harm, or (3) he made physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with Haines.
¶ 20 "The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of an offense." People v. Gray, 2017 IL 120958, ¶ 35, 91 N.E.3d 876. "Where the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict him, the reviewing court must determine, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements met beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Swenson, 2020 IL 124688, ¶ 35, 181 N.E.3d 116. "This standard of review applies in all criminal cases, whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial." People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 64, 162 N.E.3d 223. "[Circumstantial...
To continue reading
Request your trial