People v. Satterthwaite
| Decision Date | 07 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 15310,15310 |
| Citation | 72 Ill.App.3d 483,29 Ill.Dec. 3,391 N.E.2d 162 |
| Parties | , 29 Ill.Dec. 3 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harry SATTERTHWAITE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Richard J. Wilson, Deputy State Appellate Defender, David Bergschneider, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Springfield, for defendant-appellant.
Ronald C. Dozier, State's Atty., Bloomington, Marc D. Towler, Deputy Director, State's Attys. Appellate Service Commission, Karen Boyaris, Staff Atty., Springfield, for plaintiff-appellee.
Following a September 11, 1978, jury trial in the circuit court of McLean County, defendant Harry Satterthwaite was convicted of the offenses of unlawful restraint and battery and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 3 years and 364 days for the respective offenses. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of unlawful restraint, and (2) misstatement of evidence and improper comments by the State during its closing argument denied him a fair trial.
The pertinent evidence may be summarized as follows: At approximately 10:35 a. m. on June 28, 1978, the complainant left her apartment in Normal and walked toward a nearby bus stop. During her walk, defendant approached her in a car, offered her a ride, and, upon her refusal of the offer, drove beside her asking her questions. Upon arriving at the bus stop, the complainant stopped and stood facing away from defendant. Defendant then got out of his car, approached the complainant, took hold of her arm, and attempted to persuade her to take a ride with him. The complainant refused. Defendant then touched the complainant between the legs and on the breasts while holding her by the arm and then by the leg. Defendant asked what complainant's husband would think if she was raped, but the complainant did not respond. Acting disgusted, defendant then released her, returned to his car, and departed. The incident testified to encompassed a period of about two minutes. The complainant admitted to not having struggled with defendant nor calling out for help during the incident and explained that she had been scared, confused, and "frozen with fear."
Section 10-3(a) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, par. 10-3(a)) provides that the offense of unlawful restraint is committed when one "knowingly without legal authority Detains another" (emphasis added) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, par. 10-3(a)). Defendant maintains that since the evidence showed that the complainant had reached her destination and that she did not attempt to pull or walk away from him while he held onto her, no evidence existed that the complainant was "detained" within the meaning of the statute. The State argues that it is not necessary that one be moving and be prevented from proceeding onward to be "detained" within the meaning of the statute and contends that since the evidence shows that complainant's free locomotion was impaired, defendant's conviction must stand.
No statutory provision or decision of a court of review of this state defines the term "detain" as used in section 10-3(a). Black's Law Dictionary, revised 4th edition includes in its definition of the term " * * * to delay, to hinder, to hold, * * * to retard, to restrain from proceeding, to stay, to stop."
The present offense of unlawful restraint has replaced the old offense of false imprisonment in Illinois (Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 38, par. 10-3, Committee Comments 1961, at 287 (Smith-Hurd 1972)). Concerning the requirement of detention as to the offense of false imprisonment, it is stated at 35 C.J.S. False Imprisonment § 71 (1960):
"The detention must be willful and against the consent of the person detained, and by some conduct which Prevents him from moving from one place to another." (Emphasis added.)
See...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Daniel
...a person was detained, that is, whether that person's “freedom of locomotion was * * * impaired.” People v. Satterthwaite, 72 Ill.App.3d 483, 485, 29 Ill.Dec. 3, 391 N.E.2d 162 (1979). Neither physical force nor the presence of a weapon is required. People v. Bowen, 241 Ill.App.3d 608, 627–......
-
People v. Bowen
...must be wilful, against the victim's consent, and prevent movement from one place to another. (People v. Satterthwaite (1979), 72 Ill.App.3d 483, 485, 29 Ill.Dec. 3, 5, 391 N.E.2d 162, 164.) Actual or physical force is not a necessary element of unlawful restraint as long as an individual's......
-
People v. Bergin
...woman suddenly awakened in her own bedroom. The victim had a right to suffer no restraint at all. See People v. Satterthwaite (1979), 72 Ill.App.3d 483, 485, 29 Ill.Dec. 3, 391 N.E.2d 162 (two-minute impairment of victim's freedom of locomotion constituted unlawful Defendant next challenges......
-
People v. Jones
...or detention of a person without sufficient legal authority. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, par. 10-3; People v. Satterthwaite (1979), 72 Ill.App.3d 483, 29 Ill.Dec. 3, 391 N.E.2d 162; People v. Mulcahey (1977), 50 Ill.App.3d 421, 8 Ill.Dec. 627, 365 N.E.2d 1013.) Defendant's argument that no ......