People v. Carmichael
| Decision Date | 25 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-15-0161,4-15-0161 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM MARK CARMICHAEL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from Circuit Court of McLean County
Honorable Paul G. Lawrence, Judge Presiding.
Justices Holder White and Pope concurred in the judgment.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the jury was apprised of the relevant legal principles applicable to the evidence presented at trial.
¶ 2 In October 2014, a jury found defendant, William Mark Carmichael, guilty of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(c) (West 2012)). In December 2014, the trial court sentenced defendant to 24 months' probation. Defendant appeals, arguing the cumulative effect of jury-instruction errors denied him a fair trial. We affirm.
¶ 4 In February 2014, the State charged defendant by indictment with one count of aggravated battery (harm on a public way) (count I) (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(c) (West 2012)). (We note the charging instrument on count I referenced the prior statutory citation (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(8) (West Supp. 2011)).) The State alleged, on or about February 7, 2014, defendant knowingly and without legal justification caused bodily harm to Richard Townsend by hitting and kicking him while on or about a public way or place of accommodation, Hooligan's Pub.
¶ 5 In July 2014, the State charged defendant by indictment with one count of aggravated battery (great bodily harm) (count II) (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(a)(1) (West 2012)). The State alleged, on or about February 7, 2014, defendant knowingly and without legal justification committed a battery that caused great bodily harm, broken bones, to Townsend.
¶ 6 In October 2014, the trial court held a jury trial. Our review of the evidence presented reveals the following.
¶ 8 On February 7, 2014, Townsend, his wife, and his son were working at Hooligan's Pub, a bar Townsend owned in Colfax, Illinois. Around 5 p.m., Angel Aston began her shift as a bartender.
¶ 9 Around 6:30 p.m., defendant and Donald Snyder arrived at the bar. Aston testified both defendant and Snyder appeared "inebriated." Snyder denied that either he or defendant had consumed alcoholic beverages prior to arriving at the bar.
¶ 10 Following a series of events where defendant (1) accused Aston of failing to return money from a previous purchase, (2) accused Aston of touching his pizza with her bare hands, and (3) made sexual references directed at Aston, Aston approached Townsend and requested he ask defendant to leave the bar. Townsend, who had been assisting Aston in delivering food to tables, spoke with defendant, who complained Aston had touched his pizza with her bare hands. Townsend informed defendant he did not have to pay for the pizza. Townsend asked defendant to leave the bar as he was being disruptive to other customers andAston. Townsend and defendant shook hands, and defendant left the bar. Snyder remained in the bar to finish his drink.
¶ 11 At some point, defendant stepped back inside the bar and motioned for Townsend to step outside. As there was no confrontation inside the bar, Townsend did not expect trouble outside. Townsend suspected defendant either sought to retrieve something he left in the bar or was wondering when he could return to the bar in the future.
¶ 12 At approximately 9 p.m., Townsend exited the bar and approached defendant on the sidewalk. Defendant appeared aggravated and questioned Townsend's decision to follow Aston's suggestion and require him to leave the bar. Townsend explained he supported Aston's suggestion. Townsend did not call defendant names or refer to him in a derogatory manner. Townsend observed defendant clench his fist and then strike him on the left side of his jaw. After being struck, Townsend stated he did not want to fight as defendant had done what he asked by leaving the bar. Following his statement, Townsend testified, "everything just sort of becomes a blank, and I remember experiencing lots of excruciating pain that continued to go on and on." Townsend recalled begging for the assault to stop. Snyder eventually exited the bar and, once outside, noticed "something was going on." He observed defendant and Townsend "scuffling on the ground." Snyder stated to Townsend to "shut up"; otherwise, defendant would kill him. Snyder testified he "shoved" Townsend. When Townsend regained consciousness, he was on the ground between two cars, and defendant and Snyder had left. Townsend believed he was struck multiple times but everything after the "first blow" became a "blur." Townsend did not strike defendant.
¶ 13 Townsend was transported by ambulance to the hospital and treated for a dislocated shoulder, a fractured left ankle, and a jaw broken in two places.
¶ 14 Townsend testified he had consumed approximately three to six beers between 5:15 and 9 p.m. Townsend's medical records indicated Townsend had admitted to consuming 13 alcoholic beverages and had a blood-alcohol content of 0.164. Prior to owning the bar, Townsend was a correctional officer, which required training in self-defense.
¶ 15 Mike Allsup, a police officer with the Colfax police department, testified, on February 7, 2014, he spoke with defendant at his home. Defendant stated he had been home all evening. Defendant was wearing a pair of jeans, which had two or three blood spots. Defendant appeared uninjured, slightly intoxicated, and nervous.
¶ 17 Defendant testified, on February 7, 2014, at approximately 6 p.m., he and Snyder arrived at Hooligan's Pub. Prior to their arrival, defendant and Snyder had not consumed alcoholic beverages. Throughout the night, defendant drank approximately four beers.
¶ 18 Defendant testified he requested a to-go container for leftover pizza. After Aston began picking up the pizza with her bare hands, defendant "pushed and knocked her hand away" and told her not to touch his food. Defendant acknowledged he stated "some pretty vulgar stuff," but he figured, because Aston "was being rude," he would "be rude back." Aston told defendant to leave the bar. Defendant requested to speak with the bar's owner. Defendant complained to Townsend about Aston touching his food. Townsend responded by stating Aston was his best bartender and directing defendant to leave the bar. Defendant left the bar, while Snyder remained to finish his beer.
¶ 19 Defendant, upset that Townsend did not listen to his side of the story before asking him to leave, returned to the bar and asked Townsend to step outside to talk. Defendant testified the sidewalk outside the bar was icy. Once outside, defendant began "talking a lot ofsmack" to Townsend. Townsend responded by telling defendant to "get the hell out of here, chink." After defendant began to leave, Townsend struck him on the side of his head, which caused him to fall. Defendant testified the strike caused a "big knot" on his head. Defendant got off the ground and struck Townsend in the face. Townsend threw defendant to the ground. Defendant grabbed Townsend by the ankles as he was afraid Townsend would start kicking him. The next thing defendant recalled was Townsend on the ground in the street. After Townsend was in the street, defendant realized Snyder was outside. Defendant and Snyder left.
¶ 20 Defendant told Officer Allsup he was at home the entire evening because he did not want to go to jail. Defendant testified he grabbed Townsend around his ankles to protect himself. When asked whether he "punched" Townsend to protect himself, defendant testified:
¶ 22 At the jury-instruction conference, the State proposed the following instruction be given to the jury on self-defense:
Defendant objected to the instruction as he believed the second paragraph was inappropriate under the circumstances. Defendant offered an alternative instruction, which removed thesecond paragraph from the State's instruction. Over defendant's objection, the trial court indicated it would instruct the jury with the State's instruction.
¶ 24 The State informed the jury defendant was charged with two counts of aggravated battery and a lack of legal justification was an element of both charges. The State asserted, "the only place that the State and the defendant disagree is whether or not that force was justified, whether or not the defendant was actually acting in self-defense." The State indicated the jury would receive an instruction explaining a person is justified in using force to the extent he reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to defend himself against the imminent use of unlawful force. The State further noted the instruction would explain a person is justified in using force intended to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believed such force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. The State argued, even if the jury believed defendant's claim of self-defense, defendant, who walked away with no visible injuries, could not have reasonably believed it was necessary to use such force as to cause a broken jaw, fractured ankle, and dislocated shoulder.
¶ 25 Defense counsel emphasized to the jury the burden of...
To continue reading
Request your trial