People v. Hutson

• Decision Date: 09 April 1987
• Docket Number: No. 5-86-0013,5-86-0013
• Citation: 153 Ill.App.3d 1073,506 N.E.2d 779
• Parties: , 107 Ill.Dec. 36 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert HUTSON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 779

506 N.E.2d 779

153 Ill.App.3d 1073, 107 Ill.Dec. 36

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Robert HUTSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 5-86-0013.

Appellate Court of Illinois Fifth District.

April 9, 1987.

Stephen Swofford, State's Atty., Fairfield, Kenneth R. Boyle, Director, Stephen E. Norris, Deputy Director, Debra A. Buchman, Staff Atty., Office of the State's Attys.Appellate Prosecutor, Mt. Vernon, for plaintiff-appellee.

Randy E. Blue, Deputy Defender, Andrew P. Zinner, Asst. Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Mt. Vernon, for defendant-appellant.

Justice JONESdelivered the Opinion of the Court:

The defendant, Robert Hutson, was charged with the offenses of aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse.After a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of both offenses and sentenced to six years' imprisonment for each offense, with the sentences to run concurrently.On appeal the defendant contends that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of aggravated criminal sexual assault because the State failed to prove the element of sexual penetration.We affirm.

The defendant was charged with the aggravated criminal sexual assault of his 11-year-old stepdaughter, A.M.H., pursuant to Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 12-14(b)(1).At trial the jury heard testimony that on August 1, 1985, the defendant called the child-victim back into his bedroom in the trailer in which they were living and told the child to lie down on the bed.The defendant pulled up the child's nightgown, began to rub her vaginal area, and then inserted his finger into her vagina.The victim, through the use of an anatomically correct doll, showed the court and the jury that the defendant had placed a finger into her vagina.The child specifically stated that the defendant was not just rubbing her but that the defendant had inserted his finger into her.The child also told the jury that "[the defendant] didn't put [his finger] all the way in" but inserted it just "a little bit."The child, using anatomically correct dolls, showed the court and the jury that the defendant had also rubbed his penis over her vaginal area and had kissed her in her vaginal area.

On cross-examination the victim testified that she was not sure whether or not the defendant had put his finger inside her and agreed with an inquiry from defense counsel that the defendant might have "just rubbed it on the outside or put his finger on the outside."On redirect examination the victim stated that while she was not sure whether the defendant had put his finger inside her, "[i]t feel [sic] like it."The defendant's activity had ended when the victim heard her mother coming home.

The victim's mother, Alice Hutson, testified that on August 1, 1985, she had left her home at about 10:00 a.m. to go to Bible study.The defendant, who was her husband at the time, remained home with her four children.When she arrived home later that morning, the victim had been in the parents' bedroom on the bed and the defendant had been in the bathroom.A few days later, when the child thought that she was again going to be left alone with the defendant, the child began to cry and told her mother that her "daddy" was "messing around with her."The mother confronted the defendant concerning the incident, and he admitted to "playing with [the victim] down there with his fingers."The next day after the defendant had gone out, the mother talked further with the victim, who told her that the defendant"was playing with her down there and * * * was sticking his finger in there * * *."The mother then took her four children and left home, reporting the incident to the police later that day.

The defendant testified on his own behalf that at no time on the morning in question was he alone with the victim.He stated that his brother and sister-in-law had spent the night with them the night before.They had stayed around the next morning and were just leaving when the defendant's wife returned home from Bible study around noon.The defendant testified that his relationship with "A.M." had deteriorated after she had found out that the defendant was not her father about a year before and that "[A.M.] got closer to her mother than she was to me."The defendant denied having committed any of the acts described by the victim and stated that he had never molested his stepdaughter in any way.

Both the defendant's brother and sister-in-law testified that they had remained at the defendant's home on the morning in question until the defendant's wife had returned home.The victim's brother, 10-year-old Robert, testified that on the day after his aunt and uncle had spent the night with his family, the aunt and uncle both left before his mother left home.Robert stated that his uncle had returned for a short time to get pants for his son.Thereafter, the only people at home were the defendant, himself and his brother and sisters.Robert remembered that the defendant had called his sister, the victim, into his mother's bedroom and that both the defendant and the victim had been alone in that room for a long time.On cross-examination Robert was adamant that his aunt and uncle had left the home before his mother went to Bible study.

Following this testimony the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of the offenses of aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse.The defendant was sentenced to a term of six years' imprisonment on both counts.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence of sexual penetration upon the victim was sufficient to convict the defendant of the offense of aggravated criminal sexual assault."Sexual penetration," for purposes of this case, is defined under the statute as "any intrusion, however slight, of any part of the body of one person * * * into the sex organ * * * of another person * * *."(Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 12-12(f).)The defendant contends that the testimony of the 11- year-old victim here was too uncertain to sustain his conviction of aggravated criminal sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is settled that where a conviction of such an offense is based solely on the testimony of...