People v. Little
| Decision Date | 22 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-13-1114,4-13-1114 |
| Citation | 2014 IL App (4th) 131114 -U |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TIMOTHY E. LITTLE, 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 Douglas County
Honorable Michael G. Carroll, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding (1) the stalking statute was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, (2) the jury was properly instructed, (3) the trial court did not err by limiting defendant's cross-examination of a witness, and (4) sufficient evidence existed to support defendant's conviction.
¶ 2 In January 2013, the State charged defendant, Timothy E. Little, with multiple offenses, including stalking (720 ILCS 5/12-7.3(a)(2) (West 2012)). In October 2013, a jury found defendant guilty of stalking but acquitted him of the remaining offenses. Following a December 2013 sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant to 30 months' probation.
¶ 3 Defendant appeals, asserting (1) the stalking statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, (2) the jury was improperly instructed, (3) the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of the State's occurrence witness, and (4) insufficient evidence existed to support his conviction. We affirm.
¶ 5 In January 2013, the State charged defendant by information with multiple offenses allegedly occurring on January 27, 2013. Relevant to this appeal is count II, which alleged defendant committed the offense of stalking against his wife, Sarah Little, in that he threatened her with a gun and then followed her to a women's shelter, a course of conduct that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress under section 12-7.3(a)(2) of the Criminal Code of 2012 (stalking statute) (720 ILCS 5/12-7.3(a)(2) (West 2012)).
¶ 7 On October 21, 2013, defendant's case proceeded to jury trial. Witnesses provided the following testimony. In the interest of brevity, we recount only the testimony relevant to the resolution of this appeal.
¶ 10 Defendant and Sarah Little married in July 2012. Within a few weeks of the marriage, Sarah learned she was pregnant. Initially, she was excited about the pregnancy, but she began having second thoughts. She had medical concerns about having another baby because she had previously given birth to a premature son who died several months later from a congenital heart defect. Additionally, Sarah had concerns about the health of the marriage, as defendant constantly accused her of planning to leave him for her ex-husband, Steve Vogel, and became very controlling over where she was and what she did with "his" baby.
¶ 11 In September 2012, Sarah had moved out of the marital home following an argument, during which defendant put a gun in his mouth in front of her four-year-old son. She subsequently terminated her pregnancy but told defendant she suffered a miscarriage.
¶ 12 According to Sarah, defendant did not believe she miscarried and constantly questioned her about it until October 2012, when she admitted terminating the pregnancy. She described defendant as "irate" when she told him the truth. Later that month, Sarah returned home, saying she was afraid of defendant and also "felt guilty" for terminating the pregnancy. From July 2012 to January 2013, Sarah testified she "left" defendant about five times but always returned to him. Between October 2012 and January 2013, Sarah characterized her arguments with defendant as more heated because defendant remained agitated over her terminating the pregnancy.
¶ 13 b. January 27, 2013
¶ 14 On the morning of January 27, 2013, Sarah and defendant went to breakfast. They discussed plans to build a marital home, but Sarah expressed reservations. The two began arguing, at which time defendant brought up her recent abortion. During the argument with defendant, Sarah said he called her a "babykiller" and told her she "owed him a baby" that he would get "no matter what he would have to do." He also accused of her planning to leave him for Vogel. The pair returned to their home in Villa Grove, still arguing. Sarah said she went into the kitchen to throw away some garbage, while defendant began opening the numerous gun safes in the house. Sarah testified defendant removed numerous guns from the safes and started gathering them on the dining room table.
¶ 15 Sarah stated defendant told her he was going to take his guns to North Ward School, where her son attended preschool, the next day and "every baby killed would be on her." Sarah felt threatened, so she went upstairs to the master bedroom. Five minutes later, defendant appeared in the bedroom and opened the gun safe located in the bedroom closet. When she turned around, defendant held a gun in his hand. According to Sarah, he said, "I'm going to killyou today." Sarah explained defendant typically kept that particular gun loaded, but she could not confirm it was loaded that day. She begged him to put the gun away or allow her to call her son, but defendant refused both requests. She described defendant's eyes as "very cold and very black[;] *** he was very hateful." Sarah testified defendant pointed the gun at her, at which time she screamed and grabbed his wrist. He shoved her away, saying she could scream, "but it wasn't going to help, it was too late." Sarah continued holding his wrist until he calmed down and went into the bathroom, at which time she went downstairs.
¶ 16 While downstairs, Sarah retrieved the car keys from defendant's coat pocket and waited to see if he remained calm. Defendant joined Sarah downstairs, telling her that he should kill her because she did not deserve to live. When defendant said he wanted tobacco, Sarah offered to buy some for him. Rather than driving to a store to buy tobacco, Sarah drove to Beth's Place, a women's shelter in Tuscola. She did not tell defendant she intended to drive to a shelter rather than the store. Later in the trial proceedings, defendant's ex-wife, Mandy Crumrin, testified she resided at Beth's Place in 2007, while seeking an order of protection against defendant.
¶ 17 Sarah testified, upon her arrival at Beth's Place, she parked in the parking lot, an area which was visible from three different directions. When inside, Sarah called Vogel, who had visitation with her son that day, to warn him about defendant's threats. Fifteen to twenty minutes later, an advocate asked Sarah to describe defendant's vehicle. Sarah later learned a truck matching that description drove by Beth's Place shortly after her arrival. Sarah said she was afraid defendant planned to kill her or Vogel.
¶ 18 c. Divorce Proceedings¶ 19 Soon after the January 27, 2013, incident, Sarah filed for divorce. The trial court admitted the divorce petition as evidence but denied defendant the opportunity to cross-examine Sarah about its contents, stating the document spoke for itself. Defendant asserted he sought to demonstrate an adversarial relationship between him and Sarah. Further, defendant argued the petition demonstrated Sarah was biased because she sought financial gain through her maintenance request, a request the court would more likely grant if she testified that he mistreated her. The court noted Sarah's request for maintenance provided her no motive to lie because (1) if defendant were convicted and sentenced to prison, she would receive no maintenance; and (2) maintenance is decided independently of fault in a divorce proceeding.
¶ 21 Sharon Jarboe, the executive director for Beth's Place, testified Sarah arrived at the shelter at around noon on January 27, 2013, and parked in the front parking lot. Shortly thereafter, Jarboe went outside to clean up garbage in the parking lot. While cleaning up, she heard a vehicle approach. She said vehicles usually drove by quickly because no stop signs were located nearby. However, this vehicle drove by "very slowly," which caught her attention. Jarboe described the vehicle as a two-toned brown pickup truck with silver tool boxes lining the bed of the truck. She then identified defendant in open court as the driver of the vehicle. Despite the misty rain, she testified she saw him clearly. Once defendant passed by Beth's Place, Jarboe said he sped up and drove away. Because she was concerned about the safety of the shelter and its occupants, she placed the building on lockdown and called the police.
¶ 23 Vogel testified he lived in a country home near Tuscola on a quiet street with only one other home nearby. On January 27, 2013, he had visitation with his and Sarah's son. Thatday, he received a call from Sarah, after which he secured their son in a safe location within his home. Vogel then watched the roadway from a window, at which time he observed defendant drive by in his two-toned brown Chevrolet pickup truck. Defendant drove by at "cruising speed" once and did not return.
¶ 25 Detective Peter Buckley, the chief deputy of the Douglas County sheriff's office, testified, on January 27, 2013, he arrested and interviewed defendant. According to Buckley, defendant told him about being upset over Sarah terminating her pregnancy. Defendant "wanted her to feel like the parents of school children who were killed in school shootings" and further stated, "she deserves to lose things." Defendant explained to Buckley that when he threatened to shoot students, it was because he "was filled with anger and rage." Defendant further told Buckley, "I didn't know what I was saying" when he threatened to shoot students. Addi...
To continue reading
Request your trial