People v. Cardamone

• Decision Date: 19 March 2009
• Docket Number: No. 106200.,106200.
• Citation: 905 N.E.2d 806,328 Ill.Dec. 917,232 Ill.2d 504
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Michael P. CARDAMONE, Appellant.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

905 N.E.2d 806

232 Ill.2d 504

328 Ill.Dec. 917

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Michael P. CARDAMONE, Appellant.

No. 106200.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 19, 2009.

Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Thomas A. Lilien, Deputy Defender, and Mark G. Levine, Assistant Appellate Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Elgin, for appellant.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Springfield, Joseph E. Birkett, State's Attorney, Wheaton (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, Michael M. Glick, and Erin

M. O'Connell, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Justice GARMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion:

Defendant, Michael Cardamone, was convicted of harassment of a witness in violation of section 32-4a of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/32-4a (West 2004)). The appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction (379 Ill.App.3d 656, 318 Ill.Dec. 397, 883 N.E.2d 628), and defendant appealed to this court. Before this court, defendant argues that the State failed to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because it failed to establish that the target of his harassment experienced a level of distress akin to a threat of physical damage to person or property. Defendant also asserts that the State failed to establish defendant's intent to communicate with his target. We granted defendant's petition for leave to appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 315 (210 Ill.2d R. 315). We now affirm defendant's conviction.

BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged with and convicted of two counts of harassment of a witness in violation of section 32-4a of the Criminal Code (720 ILCS 5/32-4a (West 2004)). The first count of harassment of a witness was based on the target, Teresa Eason, being a witness in another criminal proceeding against defendant. The second count of harassment was based upon Eason's familial relationship with a victim in the other criminal proceeding. Defendant was also charged with and convicted of three counts of disorderly conduct in violation of section 26-1(a)(4) of the Criminal Code for filing a false police report. 720 ILCS 5/26-1(a)(4) (West 2004). The first count of disorderly conduct was predicated upon defendant's reporting Eason was committing the offense of driving while under the influence of alcohol. The second count was based on defendant's simultaneous report that Eason was illegally transporting alcoholic liquor. The third count was based on defendant's accusation that Eason was guilty of improper lane usage. Before this court, defendant contests only his conviction for harassment of a witness. Defendant has not appealed his conviction for disorderly conduct. All of the charges were based upon the same act that defendant committed on July 7, 2004.

On the morning of July 7, 2004, defendant and Eason both attended a hearing in another criminal proceeding where defendant was accused of wrongdoing. Eason was both a potential witness and the mother of an alleged victim in this other case.

After the hearing, defendant and Eason both took the same road to get from the courthouse to their respective homes. Defendant found himself immediately behind Eason as they drove. Eason testified that she noticed defendant in the car behind her and that this made her uncomfortable. Defendant and his wife testified that Eason cut them off several times as they tried to pass her. However, Eason testified that she drove steadily and did not speed or swerve.

Shortly after Eason and defendant turned south onto Eola Road, defendant phoned 911 to report Eason as a drunk driver. Defendant told the 911 operator that he was calling because he believed someone was drinking and driving. Defendant gave the operator his location as well as a description of Eason's vehicle and license plate number. The operator asked defendant, "Did you see them drinking or you just suspect it?" Defendant replied, "Yeah, I saw a bottle in their car actually it was that was so weird [sic], half covered up."

Shortly thereafter, Eason was stopped by Officer Michael Auld of the Aurora police department. Eason testified that her "heart dropped" when she was pulled over, "like it always does when a police officer—even when you know you didn't do anything wrong, you think what did I do?" Eason testified that it was "nerve wracking."

Auld explained to Eason that she had been stopped because 911 had received a report that she was intoxicated. Upon hearing this explanation, Eason stated that she felt "quite a bit of anger that this was happening." Eason also told Auld that defendant had made the call to 911 as he was "the only one who would have called the police." Eason offered to let the officer search her entire car. Though Auld declined to search the vehicle, Eason did open the sliding door of her minivan to allow the officer to look inside.

At trial, Auld testified that after he received the dispatch from 911, he moved to intercept Eason's minivan. The officer testified that based on the license plate number given to the 911 operator, he was able to see Eason's address. Because Eason was heading toward her home, he positioned himself such that Eason would have to pass him on her way to her home. When Eason passed Auld, he took time to observe Eason's driving. He did not notice any traffic violation or erratic driving. However, based upon the 911 call, he stopped Eason.

Auld further testified that when he spoke with Eason, he did not notice any signs of intoxication or drinking. Her speech was not slurred, her eyes were not glassy, and she did not smell of alcohol. When invited to search the vehicle, the officer declined, but testified that he leaned through the sliding door and looked between the driver's and front passenger's bucket seats and under the seats from the rear to try and find the container defendant alleged he had seen. Auld stated that he saw no beverage container of any kind, let alone one that was "half covered up." Thereafter, Auld released Eason without citation or further incident.

Following a bench trial, the trial court found defendant guilty of all counts. In reaching its verdict on the disorderly conduct charges, the trial court stated that the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant "made a false report as outlined in counts 2, 3 and 4 knowing there was no reasonable grounds for doing so."

In finding the defendant guilty of harassment of a witness, the trial court noted that Eason "was expected to be a witness or was the family member of a potential witness in the case against defendant." The court found that defendant indirectly communicated with Eason "through the use of police authority." The trial court further found that defendant specifically intended to annoy Eason. The trial court summarized its findings when it stated that "defendant made a false report as to the driving and that he did so knowing [Eason] was a witness or a family member of a witness, no other purpose other than to harass or annoy [Eason] can be concluded." Finally, in determining whether Eason suffered emotional distress, the court adopted the definition of harassment found in the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 (750 ILCS 60/101 et seq. (West 2004)). The Domestic Violence Act defines harassment as "knowing conduct which is not necessary to accomplish a purpose that is reasonable under the circumstances; would cause a reasonable person emotional distress; and does cause emotional distress to the petitioner." 750 ILCS 60/103(7) (West 2004). Under this standard, the court held that "defendant's conduct was deliberate and with the intent to harass or annoy [Eason]. She certainly suffered some emotional distress by his conduct; being stopped by the police without cause, being detained even for a short time without any reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal conduct, having her car searched, all are actions which would make a person upset anxious and certainly uncomfortable."

Thus, the trial court concluded that there was "sufficient evidence to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" on the witness harassment counts.

Defendant appealed his conviction on the witness harassment counts. 379 Ill. App.3d 656, 318 Ill.Dec. 397, 883 N.E.2d 628. In the appellate court, defendant asserted two reasons why the trial court erred in finding him guilty. First, defendant asserted that "the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the traffic stop produced in Eason's mind the requisite mental anguish or emotional distress." 379 Ill.App.3d at 663, 318 Ill.Dec. 397, 883 N.E.2d 628. Second, defendant asserted that "the evidence was insufficient to establish that he communicated with Eason." 379 Ill.App.3d at 667-68, 318 Ill.Dec. 397, 883 N.E.2d 628. The appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction. 379 Ill.App.3d at 669, 318 Ill.Dec. 397, 883 N.E.2d 628.

Defendant appealed to this court raising the same two issues he presented to the appellate court. We granted defendant's petition and for the reasons that follow affirm the judgment of the trial and appellate courts.

ANALYSIS

I. The Requisite Level of Emotional Distress

Defendant's first argument is that his conviction should be overturned because the State did not present any evidence that the level of distress experienced by Eason was akin to "a threat of injury or damage to her person or property."

In assessing whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a verdict, a reviewing court's inquiry is "`whether, after viewing 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.' (Emphasis in original.)" People v. Bush, 214 Ill.2d 318, 326, 292 Ill.Dec. 926, 827 N.E.2d 455 (2005), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-89, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979); People v. Collins, 106 Ill.2d 237, 261, 87 Ill.Dec. 910, 478 N.E.2d 267...