People v. Moon
| Decision Date | 20 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-17-0675,1-17-0675 |
| Citation | 168 N.E.3d 195,445 Ill.Dec. 731,2020 IL App (1st) 170675 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omega MOON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
¶ 1 Following a 2016 jury trial, defendant Omega Moon was convicted of domestic battery and sentenced to one year of probation. On appeal, defendant contends that (1) her conviction is a nullity because the jury was not properly sworn before trial, (2) the trial court erred by not asking potential jurors all the voir dire questions required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. July 1, 2012), and (3) the court did not give a jury instruction required by statute. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
¶ 3 On October 24, 2016, a jury found defendant guilty of domestic battery. On March 7, 2017, the court sentenced defendant to one year of probation with fines and fees. Defendant filed her notice of appeal on March 13, 2017. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to article VI, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6 ), and Illinois Supreme Court Rules 603 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013) and 606 (eff. July 1, 2017) governing appeals from a final judgment of conviction in a criminal case.
¶ 5 Defendant was charged with domestic battery ( 720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1) (West 2014)) for allegedly, on or about June 22, 2014, "knowing and intentionally caus[ing] bodily harm to" family member Shontrell Moon by striking him "several times with [an] object," leaving belt-buckle-shaped marks on his left arm and "causing redness, swelling and broken skin."
¶ 7 The public defender of Cook County was appointed to represent defendant.
¶ 8 The State filed a motion to admit as evidence "under the hearsay exception delineated in 725 ILCS 5/115-10" statements made by then-eight-year-old Shontrell to named persons, including a police officer and an employee of the Department of Children and Family Services (Department). Following hearing testimony by the officer and Department employee, the court found their testimony to Shontrell's statements to be admissible.
¶ 9 Before voir dire , the court made various remarks to the venire. The court said that it would "discuss some principles of law" but this would not be "your final or formal instructions on the law." The court told the venire that the domestic battery charge against defendant was not evidence and the venire could draw no inference of guilt from it. The court asked if everyone understood and noted that everyone nodded. The court told the venire that defendant is presumed innocent of the charge unless and until the jury is convinced of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court asked if everyone understood and accepted this principle, asked the venire to raise a hand if anyone did not, and noted that nobody did. The court told the venire that the State bears the burden of proving defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court asked if everyone understood and accepted this principle, asked the venire to raise a hand if anyone did not understand and accept the principle, and noted that nobody raised a hand. The court told the venire that defendant is not required to prove her innocence and need not present any witnesses. The court asked if anyone disagreed with this principle, asked the venire to raise a hand if anyone did, and noted that nobody did. The court then asked if everyone understood and accepted this principle, asked the venire to raise a hand if anyone did not, and noted that nobody did. The court told the venire that defendant does not have to testify, asked the venire if anyone would hold that principle against her, asked the venire to raise a hand if anyone would, and noted that nobody did. Neither party objected during the court's remarks and questions.
¶ 10 During voir dire , the court asked each potential juror, in relevant part, if he or she would decide this case without sympathy, bias, or prejudice to either side; if he or she would wait for all the evidence, arguments, and instructions before making up his or her mind; if he or she would follow the law as given by the court; and if he or she would be fair to both sides.
¶ 11 After 12 jurors and an alternate juror were chosen, the court asked for the jury to be sworn, and the record indicates "(Jury sworn to answer questions.)."
¶ 13 Shontrell Moon testified that he was 11 years old as of the 2016 trial, had lived with defendant as of June 2014 for about 8 years, and referred to defendant then as his "mom." On June 22, he visited his mother Angel for a few hours with defendant's permission. Angel picked him up by car, and he went home by bicycle when defendant came to Angel's home to tell him to come home. It was still daytime when he arrived home. Defendant then "whipped me with a belt buckle" multiple times on his bare back and arm when nobody else was in the room. "A little bit later," a police officer came to the home, and Shontrell spoke with her on the porch "about what had happened." That night, he went to a hospital, where he spoke "about what had happened" with a Department employee named Karen. Shontrell had belt buckle marks on his arm and back.
¶ 14 On cross-examination, Shontrell testified that he asked defendant's permission to go to Angel's home when Angel arrived at his home and that defendant gave permission. He could not recall what time that happened. When asked if he knew that defendant did not allow him to go to Angel's house, Shontrell replied that she gave him such permission, although not often, and denied that the occasion at issue was the first time he asked for permission to go to Angel's home. When asked if two officers came to his home, he maintained that "[t]here was one," the officer who spoke with him on the porch. The officer asked where he had been "because they were looking for you." He denied telling the officer that he was home the entire time and denied that he was afraid to admit being at Angel's home. He also denied telling Karen at the hospital that defendant's son was in the room when defendant struck him with the belt buckle. However, he acknowledged telling Karen that defendant "doesn't hit" him and that he is not afraid of her. After the night in question, Shontrell lived with defendant for another two months.
¶ 15 On redirect examination, Shontrell clarified that he told Karen that defendant struck him with a belt on the day in question but had not struck him before that day.
¶ 16 Police officer Kimberly Nelson testified that she and another officer went to defendant's home at about 7:30 p.m. on June 22, 2014, in response to a report of a missing child. There, she spoke with defendant, who said that her son Shontrell was missing. When asked why she thought so, defendant said that "some neighborhood kid told her that the child's stepmother came, put his bike in her car, and took him away in the car." Defendant and Nelson unsuccessfully searched the neighborhood together until defendant spoke with someone by telephone and then said that Shontrell was at home. Nelson and defendant returned home, where defendant stayed in the police car while Nelson spoke with Shontrell. He was shirtless and had a bruise on his arm. When Nelson asked how he came to be bruised, he answered that "he got a whipping" from "his momma" with a belt buckle. When Nelson was asked at trial if Shontrell had clarified who he meant, she testified that he said that "Momma Moon"—that is, defendant—whipped him.
¶ 17 Officer Nelson then went to ask defendant how Shontrell came to be bruised. She initially replied by asking Nelson the same question, before claiming that Shontrell fell while playing basketball the previous day. After conferring with her partner, Nelson decided to arrest defendant. She took her to the police station and summoned an ambulance for Shontrell to take him to a hospital. At trial, Nelson identified various photographs as depicting the buckle-shaped bruises she saw that day on Shontrell's left arm.
¶ 18 On cross-examination, Officer Nelson testified that her search for Shontrell included going to Angel's house, where someone told her that Angel was not home. However, Nelson's report reflected that Angel answered certain questions from Nelson, including admitting that she has no visitation rights regarding Shontrell. Nelson then acknowledged that "I guess I did" speak with Angel. When Nelson questioned Shontrell on the porch, she did not ask him when he was whipped. He told her at first that he went to Angel's home but then said that he had been home "the whole time." Nelson did not "know what his time frame was" for that remark.
¶ 19 Karen Dixon testified to being a child abuse investigator for the Department. She interviewed Shontrell at the hospital on June 22, 2014. He told her that he was out riding his bicycle when Angel approached him and took him to her home, where he stayed until defendant came to Angel's home and told him to come home. (Dixon explained that Angel, actually named Tara Sahara, is Shontrell's natural mother and defendant was his guardian.) By his account, he returned home by bicycle, where defendant whipped him with a belt in the presence of her son. Shontrell told her that he was not afraid of defendant and that she did not strike him often. Dixon saw "belt marks on his arm and his back" after he removed his shirt. At trial, Dixon identified various photographs as depicting the multiple buckle-shaped bruises she saw that day on Shontrell's back and arm. Shontrell told Dixon that day that he received those injuries from a whipping by defendant. On June 25, Dixon spoke with defendant. She told Dixon that she searched for Shontrell on the day in question until she found him and sent him home, where she whipped him with a belt....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Nelson
...¶ 29 "[N]o Illinois statute or Supreme Court Rule prescribes the form or language of the criminal trial juror's oath ***." People v. Moon , 2020 IL App (1st) 170675, ¶ 37, 445 Ill.Dec. 731, 168 N.E.3d 195. Nevertheless, the juror's oath has been defined as a promise to lay aside one's "impr......